R. v. Hauca, (1977) 6 A.R. 228 (CA)

• Judge: Sinclair, Lieberman and Moir, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 06, 1977
• Citations: (1977), 6 A.R. 228 (CA)

R. v. Hauca (1977), 6 A.R. 228 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Hauca

Indexed As: R. v. Hauca

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Sinclair, Lieberman and Moir, JJ.A.

October 6, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of defrauding the Province of Alberta of $1,906.00 contrary to s. 338(1) of the Criminal Code. Four cheques were issued by the Province of Alberta payable to four companies which were closely connected to the accused. The cheques were issued pursuant to a program of grants to small businesses designed to encourage the employment of students during the summer months. The accused did not apply for the grants. The cheques were issued to the four companies upon the instructions of the accused's cousin who was responsible for administering the grants program. The accused's cousin was also charged with fraud but was acquitted by the trial judge. The accused was convicted by the trial judge.

On appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the conviction of the accused was quashed. The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the Crown failed to prove false acts or acts of the accused which induced the Province of Alberta to part with money. The Court of Appeal stated actus reus must be established as a condition precedent to the existence of criminal intent - See paragraph 3.

Sinclair, J.A., dissenting, in the Alberta Court of Appeal would have dismissed the appeal and would have affirmed the conviction of the accused. Sinclair, J.A., stated that there was an irresistible inference from the evidence that the names of the payees of the four cheques were supplied by the accused - See paragraph 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 162

General principles - Elements of criminal conduct - Actus reus or act of the accused - The accused was charged with defrauding the Province of Alberta of $1,906.00 contrary to s. 338(1) of the Criminal Code - The Alberta Court of Appeal acquitted the accused because of the failure of the Crown to prove any false act or acts of the accused which induced the Province of Alberta to part with money - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that actus reus must be established as a condition precedent to the existence of criminal intent - See paragraph 3.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lake, [1954] 18 C.R. 339, folld. [para. 5].

R. v. Zeritec Industries Limited et al., [1975] 4 W.W.R. 702, refd to. [para. 10]; folld [para. 81].

R. v. Caldwell (1972), 19 C.R.N.S. 293, folld. [para. 85].

Counsel:

A.M. Harradence, Q.C. and J.D. Odishaw, for the appellant;

D.W. Kilgour, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard by SINCLAIR, LIEBERMAN and MOIR, JJ.A., of the Appeal Division of the Alberta Supreme Court. The judgment of the Appeal Division was delivered on October 6, 1977 and the following opinions were filed:

MOIR, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 20.

SINCLAIR, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 21 to 87.

LIEBERMAN, J.A., concurred with MOIR, J.A.