R. v. Lowden, 1982 CanLII 218 (SCC)

Judge:Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
Court:Supreme Court of Canada
Case Date:February 09, 1982
Jurisdiction:Canada (Federal)
Citations:1982 CanLII 218 (SCC);[1982] 2 SCR 789;[1982] 2 SCR 791;1982 CanLII 217 (SCC);(1982), 42 N.R. 616 (SCC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Lowden (1982), 42 N.R. 616 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Lowden

Indexed As: R. v. Lowden

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

August 9, 1982.

Summary:

An accused, who owned and operated a travel agency, used for business purposes, funds received from clients for the purchase of fares. The accused was convicted of eight counts of theft under s. 283 of the Criminal Code. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in (1981), 27 A.R. 91, dismissed the appeal and held that the accused was guilty of theft under ss. 283, 290 and 292 of the Code. Moir, J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused on the ground that none of the three sections caught the accused. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1702

Offences against property - Theft - Special types - Misappropriation of money held under direction - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that a travel agent, who used for business purposes funds received from clients for the purchase of fares or reservations, was properly convicted of theft under s. 292(1) of the Criminal Code - The court held that, although a client's expectations alone did not constitute a direction, expectations, when known to a recipient of the money as a result of express instructions, were "tantamount to a direction" - The court stated that it was implicit that the agent was to fulfil the expectations or return the money - See paragraphs 14 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 9023

Appeals to Supreme Court of Canada - Appeals without leave - What constitutes a "question of law" - An accused was convicted of theft under s. 283 of the Criminal Code - On appeal, his conviction was also upheld under ss. 290 and 292 - One judge dissented on the ground that a conviction could not stand on any of the sections - The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 618(1)(a) on the basis that an appeal judge dissented on a question of law - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the dissenting judge's disagreement with the finding of theft under s. 292 was not a question of law, but of fact - See paragraphs 11 to 13, 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 9027

Appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada - Appeals without leave - Based on dissent on question of law - General - An accused appealed his conviction for theft to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to s. 618(1)(a) of the Criminal Code after the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that under s. 618(1)(a) the court only had jurisdiction to determine questions of law in a dissenting judgment - The court stated that in the absence of a dissent or a dissent on a question of law, the appeal should be quashed, because the court had no jurisdiction - See paragraphs 3, 9 to 10.

Words and Phrases

Direction - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "direction" as found in the phrase "every one commits theft who, having received, ... money ... , with a direction that the money ... shall be applied to a purpose ... , fraudulently and contrary to the direction applies to any other purpose ... the money", as found in s. 292(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 - See paragraphs 14 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hall, [1972] 2 All E.R. 1009, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Geddes (1979), 52 C.C.C.(2d) 231, consd. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 292 [paras. 12 to 15]; sect. 294 [para. 3]; sect. 618(1)(a) [para. 3].

Counsel:

T.C. Semenuk, for the appellant;

D. McDonald, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on February 9, 1982. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered by LAMER, J., on August 9, 1982.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP