R. v. Parisé (A.M.), (1996) 179 N.B.R.(2d) 398 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 04, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 179 N.B.R.(2d) 398 (SCC);3 CR (5th) 360;1996 CanLII 178 (SCC);[1996] 3 SCR 408;202 NR 389;111 CCC (3d) 34;179 NBR (2d) 398

R. v. Parisé (A.M.) (1996), 179 N.B.R.(2d) 398 (SCC);

    179 R.N.-B.(2e) 398; 455 A.P.R. 398

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Anne-Marie Parisé (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24824)

Indexed As: R. v. Parisé (A.M.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

October 4, 1996.

Summary:

The accused was charged with defrauding the Province by receiving social assistance payments to which she was not entitled.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 153 N.B.R.(2d) 72; 392 A.P.R. 72, acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 166 N.B.R. 202; 425 A.P.R. 202, allowed the appeal and sub­stituted a guilty verdict. The court remitted the matter to the trial judge for sentencing. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's acquit­tal.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Ele­ments of - The accused, a single mother who had three children living with her, received social assistance while attending university - In breach of a con­dition of continuing eligibility, she did not inform the Department of changes in her resources that might affect eligibility, namely, that her boyfriend moved in with her and that she made $5,000 from the sale of some real property - She was charged with fraud of $16,667.42 (Crimi­nal Code, s. 380(1)(a)) - The trial judge acquitted the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - The trial judge accepted the accused's evidence that she honestly believed that her circum­stances had not changed so as to effect her en­titlement to income assis­tance - "In view of this finding, an essen­tial element of the mens rea for the offence was nega­tived".

Social Assistance - Topic 2074

Offences - Particular offences - Receiving unentitled assistance - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2005 ].

Counsel:

Anne Dugas-Horsman, for the appellant;

Luc J. Labonté, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was delivered on October 4, 1996, in both official lan­guages by Sopinka, J.