R. v. Schafer (R.C.), (2000) 195 Sask.R. 161 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 20, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 195 Sask.R. 161 (QB);2000 SKQB 177

R. v. Schafer (R.C.) (2000), 195 Sask.R. 161 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.007

Her Majesty The Queen v. Reginald Clarence Schafer

(1998 Q.B.J. No. 12; 2000 SKQB 177)

Indexed As: R. v. Schafer (R.C.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, J.

April 20, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was charged with four counts of fraud, two counts of theft over $5,000, and one count each of uttering forged docu­ments and making a false statement in a report to shareholders. The accused was alleged to have used his company as a vehicle for the offences. The company was a privately administered investment syndi­cate for the purpose of the Immigrant Investor Program.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused on all counts except for one count of theft.

Criminal Law - Topic 1645

Offences against property - Theft - Elements - Intention or mens rea - The accused was charged with theft of, inter alia, proceeds from the sale of a com­pany's shares in another company - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused on that count - The court found that the accused took the money fraudulently and without colour of right with the intent to steal and thereby deprived the company of its funds - The accused's use of a hidden account satisfied the court that he understood that his actions were dishonest and morally wrong - See paragraphs 131 to 146.

Criminal Law - Topic 2001

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - What constitutes fraud - The accused was charged with, inter alia, four counts of fraud - He was alleged to have used his company as a vehicle for the offences - The company was a privately administered investment syndicate for the purpose of the Immigrant Investor Program - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the law of fraud and convicted the accused on all four counts.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2001 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - In discussing the law of fraud, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench referred to a Supreme Court of Canada case that held that official sanc­tion could not affect dis­honesty - The court stated that "[c]onsequently, the fact that a superior or official told the accused to take something which the accused was not entitled to take would not affect the char­acterization of the conduct as dishon­est. In my view the same prin­ciples apply to any contractual waiver of conduct that is dis­honest or constitutes a prohibited act." - See paragraph 42.

Criminal Law - Topic 2085

Fraudulent transactions - Falsification - Making false prospectus, statement or account - The accused was alleged to have knowingly made a false statement to his company's preferred shareholders with the intent of deceiving them contrary to s. 400(1)(b) of the Criminal Code - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench agreed that s. 400(1)(b) was not restricted to circumstances where a false statement was made to induce someone to invest in a corporation - See paragraph 162 - The court stated that the nature of the deceit required for the purposes of s. 400(1)(b) was the same as that required by s. 380 for fraud - See paragraph 166.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Théroux (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5; 151 N.R. 104; 54 Q.A.C. 184, appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Zlatic (Z.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29; 151 N.R. 81; 54 Q.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Olan, Hudson and Hartnett, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175; 21 N.R. 504, appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Trotchie (1994), 116 Sask.R. 161; 59 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Martin (A.) (1997), 152 Sask.R. 164; 140 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), appld. [para. 26].

R. v. Black (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 313 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1983), 52 N.R. 153 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

London and Globe Finance Corp., Re, [1903] 1 Ch. 728, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174, refd to. [para. 38].

Cox and Paton v. R., [1963] S.C.R. 500, refd to. [para. 38].

Attorney General's Reference (No. 2 of 1982), [1984] Q.B. 624; [1984] 2 W.L.R. 447; [1984] 2 All E.R. 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Marquardt (1972), 18 C.R.N.S. 162; 6 C.C.C.(2d) 372; 3 W.W.R.(N.S.) 256 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Shaw (1983), 45 N.B.R.(2d) 21; 118 A.P.R. 21; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Briltz (1983), 24 Sask.R. 120 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Canadian Aero Services Ltd. v. O'Malley et al. (1973), 40 D.L.R.(3d) 371 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 46].

Stockton Financial Services Corp. v. R. and Devince, P.C.J. (1990), 68 Man.R.(2d) 233; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 527 (C.A.), dist. [para. 85].

R. v. Gray (L.V.) et al. (1995), 76 O.A.C. 387; 95 D.T.C. 5262 (C.A.), dist. [para. 85].

R. v. Molloy (A.) (1997), 151 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 344; 471 A.P.R. 344 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Knowles (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 237 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Milne, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 697; 135 N.R. 202; 125 A.R. 135; 14 W.A.C. 135; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Smith (J.J.) (1992), 59 O.A.C. 390; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 182 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 3 S.C.R. 635; 157 N.R. 375; 66 O.A.C. 237; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 160, refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. DeMarco (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 369 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Shead (R.G.S.) (1996), 114 Man.R.(2d) 42 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 151].

Gaysek v. R., [1971] S.C.R. 888; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 545; 15 C.R.N.S. 345, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Hawrish (1986), 56 Sask.R. 248; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 446 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Couture (1991), 64 C.C.C.(3d) 227 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Sebo (1988), 87 A.R. 141; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 536 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1989), 97 N.R. 399; 93 A.R. 240; 68 C.R.(3d) xxx (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Harcourt, [1930] 1 D.L.R. 736 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Bowen (1930), 43 B.C.R. 507 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Fichter and Kaufmann et al. (1984), 37 Sask.R. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Armstrong (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 212 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Hawrish (1991), 95 Sask.R. 100 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 162].

R. v. Fleming (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 270 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 163].

R. v. Nuosci (1991), 51 O.A.C. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 163].

R. v. Sebe (1987), 57 Sask.R. 256; 57 C.R.(3d) 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 166].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 380(1)(a) [para. 26]; sect. 400(1)(b) [para. 160].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed. 1999), pp. 411, 645, 831, 1197, 1198 [para. 83].

Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th Ed. 1995) [para. 30].

Dukelow and Nuse, Dictionary of Cana­dian Law (2nd Ed. 1995), pp. 399, 690 [para. 83].

Ewart, J. Douglas, Canadian Fraud (1986), p. 85 [para. 38].

Nightingale, Brenda L., The Law of Fraud (1996), pp. 2-15 [para. 28]; 2-23 [para. 29]; 3-12, 3-13 [para. 31]; 3-26 [paras. 39, 68].

Counsel:

J.A. Plemel, for the Crown;

M.P. Bodnar, Q.C., for Reginald Clarence Schafer.

This trial was heard by Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on April 20, 2000.