R. v. Fitzpatrick, (1977) 3 A.R. 261 (TD)

• Judge: Quigley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 3 A.R. 261 (TD)

R. v. Fitzpatrick (1977), 3 A.R. 261 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Fitzpatrick

Indexed As: R. v. Fitzpatrick

Alberta Supreme Court

Trial Division

Judicial District of Calgary

Quigley, J.

January 21, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of fraud pursuant to s. 338(1) of the Criminal Code. The accused was charged with obtaining money by deceit. The accused told falsehoods to induce several persons to loan him money. The Crown witnesses established a pattern of conduct by the accused used by persons operating a "confidence game". The Crown alleged that the accused had no intention of repaying the loans. The Alberta Supreme Court convicted the accused. The Alberta Supreme Court referred to the evidence of several persons who had lent money to the accused which when considered cumulatively established that the accused had no intention of repaying the loans.

Criminal Law - Topic 2003

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Intent to defraud - Criminal Code, s. 338(1) - The accused was charged with fraud by obtaining money by deceit - The accused told falsehoods to induce several persons to loan him money - The Crown alleged that the accused had no intention of repaying the loans - The Crown established a pattern of conduct by the accused which is used by persons operating a "confidence" game - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, convicted the accused - The Alberta Supreme Court referred to the evidence of several witnesses who lent money to the accused which evidence when considered cumulatively established that the accused had no intention of repaying the loans.

Evidence - Topic 8

Definitions - What constitutes a question of fact - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, stated that a person's intent or state of mind is a question of fact - See paragraph 12.

Words and Phrases

Defraud - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, discussed the meaning of the word "defraud" as found in s. 338 of the Criminal Code - See paragraph 2.

Cases Noticed:

Re London and Globe Finance Corp. Ltd., [1903] 1 Chancery 728, folld. [para. 2].

R. v. Carpenter (1911), 76 J.P. 158, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Kritz, [1950] 1 K.B. 82, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Cote, 77 C.C.C., 75, folld. [para. 11].

Edington v. Fitzmaurice (1884), 29 Chancery Division 459, folld. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 338(1) [para. 1].

Counsel:

D.M. McDonald, for the Crown;

H.S. Douglas, for the accused.

The judgment of the Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division was delivered orally by QUIGLEY, J., at Calgary, Alberta on January 21, 1977.