R. v. Steinhubl (J.K.), 2010 ABQB 602

• Judge: Bielby, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 27, 2010
• Citations: 2010 ABQB 602;(2010), 492 A.R. 1 (QB)

R. v. Steinhubl (J.K.) (2010), 492 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. OC.033

Her Majesty the Queen v. James Keith Steinhubl (accused)

(051216695Q5; 2010 ABQB 602)

Indexed As: R. v. Steinhubl (J.K.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Bielby, J.

September 27, 2010.

Summary:

The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications. It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused of 13 of the counts of fraud over $5,000 in the indictment. The court acquitted the accused of two other counts of fraud over $5,000, but convicted him of the lesser included offence of attempted fraud. The court then stayed one of the latter convictions on the basis of the Kienapple principle. The court acquitted the accused of the other counts in the indictment.

Criminal Law - Topic 80

General principles - Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - Circumstances when defence may be raised - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The court reduced two of the counts (30 and 31) relating to a mortgage and the insurance thereof, to attempted fraud, where the fraud was discovered before funds were advanced - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused of both counts - However, the court stayed the conviction on count 30 by applying the rule against multiple convictions ("Kienapple" principle) - The court entered a stay on the conviction for which the mortgage lender was the complainant because it was first in time and the complainant suffered no ultimate financial loss - The court stated that had it not otherwise dismissed the counts in which the mortgage insurers were the complainants (lack of evidence of reliance), it would have similarly stayed any conviction with a mortgage lender as complainant where there was a companion conviction with the mortgage insurer as complainant - See paragraphs 246 to 252.

Criminal Law - Topic 2001

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - What constitutes fraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The accused argued that the enforcement proceedings eventually taken by the mortgage lenders removed any criminality from the accused's acts - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - See paragraphs 230 to 234.

Criminal Law - Topic 2003

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Intent to defraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that there was no direct evidence as to the accused's intent - However, the court was entitled to draw and did draw the inference that a sane and sober person intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions - From the proven facts, the court inferred that the accused subjectively knew, indeed encouraged, the straw buyers to misrepresent their intention to make a downpayment, in some cases to reside in the property being mortgaged and to make any other misrepresentation the court found them to make - The court inferred that he did so subjectively knowing that this would create prejudice to the mortgage lenders' economic interest, who would therefore be induced to loan money in circumstances of greater risk than they believed to exist - While he might not have known that this risk would be passed on to the mortgage insurers, intent to defraud was not dependent on knowledge of the ultimate victim - This was a logical consequence of the law which stated that fraud could occur without the identity of the victim being known to the fraudster - These inferences were the only rational conclusions which could be drawn from the proven facts - There were no reasonable alternate conclusions - Whether or not the accused actually intended for the mortgage lender or insurer to suffer economic harm or was willfully blind to whether it occurred was irrelevant - He might have hoped that his company could resell the mortgaged properties without any default on the mortgage, as originally represented to the straw buyers - However, that was no defense given the court's conclusions that he intended the mortgage lenders to loan money based upon misrepresentations - See paragraphs 193 to 200.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that each of the straw buyers admitted to making the misrepresentation that a downpayment would form part of the purchase price in their offers to purchase, whereas none was made or ever intended to be made - That alone was enough to prove deceit - Further, some of the straw buyers admitted to telling either or both the mortgage broker or lawyer that they intended to personally occupy the house being purchased when that was not the case - That alone was enough to prove deceit - See paragraphs 21 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the essential elements of the offence of fraud were: (i) identity; (ii) time and place; (iii) use of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means; (iv) deprivation; (v) reliance; (vi) intent to defraud; and (vii) quantum of loss - See paragraph 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench acquitted the accused of the majority of the counts in the indictment because the Crown failed to prove the essential element of reliance to the required standard in relation to those counts - That failure arose from the absence of direct evidence of reliance or of evidence from which an inference of reliance could safely be made - No reliable evidence was led to show that the mortgage lender's policies and practices required its employees to decline to fund a mortgage if they had learned that one or more of the alleged misrepresentations had been made - It was not therefore possible to draw an inference of reliance, from the evidence of the conditions imposed upon the approval of the mortgage and such policies and practices - Further, a reasonable doubt as to reliance arose respecting a few counts because of express evidence given by the mortgage lender's employees which suggested that the mortgage might have been approved even had the misrepresentations been known - See paragraphs 39 to 41 and 144 to 163.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the essential element of identity was proved - The court held, inter alia, that while the accused might not have known that any of the mortgage lenders would obtain insurance on their mortgage loans, thus exposing them to the risk of economic loss as a result of the scheme, his identity had also been proven in relation to the counts where the mortgage insurers were the complainants - He was liable for the consequences of his actions even though the ultimate victim was unknown to him at the time he promoted the scheme to the straw buyers - This was because s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code stated that fraud occurs when anyone "... defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not" - No nexus had to be established between the fraudster and his or her victim - See paragraph 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that deprivation was proved - The court stated that "fraud is proven although there is only a risk to the economic interests of a victim rather than an actual loss. Deprivation means to place the economic interests of the complainant at risk. The complainant does not have to suffer an actual or permanent loss so long as it is exposed to risk to its economic interest." - In the present case, "the mortgage lenders were exposed to risk of prejudice to their economic interests where they were induced to loan money in circumstances of greater risk than they believed to exist. While they purchased insurance against that risk, the risk still existed. The risk was even greater for CMHC [Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation], although it ultimately recovered much of its loss from the [Law Society of Alberta] Assurance Fund. There was no guarantee that recovery would take place at the time the frauds occurred. And, of course, CMHC suffered actual loss for that portion of its insurance payouts for which it was not ultimately indemnified, while GE [GE Capital Mortgage Insurance Corporation] suffered actual loss for the entire amount of its insurance payouts." - See paragraphs 103 to 115.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Crown had proven the essential element of reliance beyond a reasonable doubt for 13 of the counts in the indictment by proving, through either direct evidence or by inference, that the mortgage lender would not have advanced mortgage funds had it known that no downpayment would be paid and, for some of these counts, that the mortgagor did not intend to reside in the property being mortgaged - See paragraph 116.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the test for reliance was whether the complainant was induced to act to his or her detriment by transferring possession of property, including money, in circumstances in which he or she would not have done so but for the fraud - See paragraph 121.

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Crown had not established reliance, either through direct evidence or by inference, in relation to any of the 28 counts in which the mortgage insurer was the complainant, because it failed to lead evidence that the mortgage insurer received and relied on any of the misrepresentations which were made at the accused's instigation - No evidence was led to show that the mortgage underwriters received any of the alleged misrepresentations in the information it received from the mortgage lenders, their sole source of information - No adequate evidence was led from either of the two mortgage insurer witnesses or from any witness as to any such policies or practices or as to the circumstances in which the mortgage lenders would not have approved a mortgage where they could not obtain insurance of it - The evidence did not support the conclusion that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that the two mortgage insurers would have declined to insure any of these mortgages had they known the truth about one or more of the alleged misrepresentations - There was simply nothing to show that the decision to insure was dependent upon this misinformation rather than other criteria - There were other conclusions which were equally as available on the evidence - See paragraphs 164 to 192.

Criminal Law - Topic 2124

Fraudulent transactions - Evidence and proof - Inference of fraud - [See third Criminal Law - Topic 2005 and eighth Criminal Law - Topic 2005 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner, Chamczuk - Chamczuk, Agarwal (the mortgage broker who obtained many of the mortgages) and Lee (the disbarred and convicted lawyer who closed many of the real estate transactions), did not testify - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered whether the hearsay evidence of the co-conspirators, Chamczuk, Agarwal or Lee, should be admitted into evidence, in relation to the actions of the accused, through the application of the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule - The court noted that the exception applied to the statements of each member of the common enterprise, even those who had not been criminally charged - Further, the rule was not limited to trials of conspiracy charges, but also applied to substantive offences such as the ones for which the accused was being tried - See paragraphs 51 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner, Chamczuk - Chamczuk, Agarwal (the mortgage broker who obtained many of the mortgages) and Lee (the disbarred and convicted lawyer who closed many of the real estate transactions), did not testify - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered whether the hearsay evidence of the co-conspirators, Chamczuk, Agarwal and Lee, in relation to the actions of the accused, was admissible through the application of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule - The court applied "the Carter three-step process" for admissibility: "1. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy or common criminal enterprise. In determining whether such a conspiracy of common enterprise has been proven, the court can look at all the evidence called, including acts and declarations made by the alleged co-actors. 2. The Crown must prove on a balance of probabilities that the individual accused was a member of the common enterprise or conspiracy. At this stage the court can only have regard to evidence directly admissible against the particular accused, without reference to the acts or declarations of other members of the conspiracy or common enterprise. And where these preconditions have been found: 3. The trier of fact may then apply any act/declaration of any of the members made in furtherance of the conspiracy/design against all of them as proof of any charge in the indictment." - After applying these three steps, the court then had to be satisfied that the "principled approach" requirements of necessity and reliability were met - Evidence falling under a traditional hearsay exception still had to be both necessary and reliable in order to be admissible - The court admitted the co-conspirators' hearsay evidence - See paragraphs 51 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 2805

Jurisdiction - General principles - Place of offence - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - The accused argued that certain of the counts alleged that the offences occurred in locations outside of Edmonton, Warburg or Empress, locations which were not borne out by the evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that this gave rise to interesting potential issues about the location of an act where that act involved electronic transmission between parties located in different cities, as well as the location of an alleged fraud where misrepresentations were made by a party in one city to a lender in another - However, none of these issues needed to be resolved in this case - Where the evidence in relation to any count revealed that the location of the alleged crime might have taken place otherwise than as described in that count, there was no suggestion that it did not take place within the court's jurisdiction (i.e., Alberta) - Section 601(4.1)(b) of the Criminal Code provided that a variance between a count on the indictment and the evidence was not material with respect to the place where the subject matter of the proceedings was alleged to have arisen if it was proven that it arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction - See paragraphs 91 to 96.

Criminal Law - Topic 4354

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages - At the heart of the frauds were alleged misrepresentations made by the straw buyers to the mortgage lenders at the instigation of the accused and his business partner, Chamczuk - Chamczuk, Agarwal (the mortgage broker who obtained many of the mortgages) and Lee (the disbarred and convicted lawyer who closed many of the real estate transactions), did not testify - However, many of the witnesses who did testify had a personal interest in the trial which might impact their credibility - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the testimony of the implicated participants required a clear and sharp warning respecting the risks of adopting, without more, their evidence, because they had engaged in activities which might have been criminal, although charges did not appear to have been laid against them - Further, many of them were sued by the various complainants and suffered significant personal losses, which had led to bankruptcy, impairment of personal credit, loss of life savings, and other trauma - Some of them admitted to harbouring personal animosity toward the accused as a result - On the other hand, most of their relevant evidence was confirmed by independent evidence - See paragraphs 43 to 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 4358

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding circumstantial evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that before it could conclude that a fact was proven by inference, that inference had to be the only rational conclusion that could be drawn from otherwise proven facts - The court had to decline to draw that inference where the proven facts led to more than one reasonable alternate conclusion (Hodge's Case (1838), 168 E.R. 1136 (Eng. C.C.R.)) - However, for an alternate inference to be "reasonable", it had to be based on all of the existing facts and not on fanciful thought or speculation - To be taken into consideration, alternate inferences did not have to be "equally reasonable" or as reasonable as the primary inference, they simply had to be reasonable (R. v. Griffin (S.C.C. 2009)) - See paragraph 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 5510

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of accomplices, co-defendants, informants, etc. - Warning to jury of danger of reliance on - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4354 ].

Evidence - Topic 306

Circumstantial evidence - Rule in Hodge's case - Whether evidence consistent with other rational conclusions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4358 ].

Evidence - Topic 1500

Hearsay rule - General principles and definitions - Definition and general rule - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 2682 ].

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 2682 ].

Evidence - Topic 3689

Documentary evidence - Private documents - Photographs, movies, videotapes, etc. - Computer printout - The accused real estate developer was charged with 60 counts of fraud by providing false information in support of various mortgage applications - It was alleged that, working in conjunction with others, he defrauded the complainant lenders and mortgage insurers of approximately $3.9 million - The scheme involved using "straw buyers" with good credit to obtain the mortgages -The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that many of the documents identified in testimony and thus admitted into evidence were printouts or "screen-captures" of electronically created and stored documentation - For example, the mortgage brokers created and submitted the mortgage applications to lenders through a computer system which did not necessarily generate paper copies of those applications at the time they were created or used - The copies used at trial were printed off for the first time in preparation for trial - As a result, the format of those documents was occasionally different from the format which the witness had originally generated or received via the computer screen, although the information contained in them was the same - The court admitted the screen captures as exhibits, notwithstanding the formatting differences - See paragraph 267.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Zlatic (Z.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29; 151 N.R. 81; 54 Q.A.C 161, refd to. [para. 27].

Hodge's Case, Re (1838), 168 E.R. 1136 (C.C.R.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42; 388 N.R. 334; 2009 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Park (S.J.) (2010), 482 A.R. 153; 490 W.A.C. 153; 2010 ABCA 248, dist. [para. 40].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Khela (G.S.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104; 383 N.R. 279; 265 B.C.A.C. 31; 446 W.A.C. 31; 2009 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Gassyt (P.) and Markowitz (A.) (1998), 114 O.A.C. 147; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 546 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Koufis (1941), 76 C.C.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 568, appld. [para. 54].

R. v. O'Brien, [1954] S.C.R. 666; [1955] D.L.R. 311, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. H.A. et al. (2005), 202 O.A.C. 54; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 233 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2006), 352 N.R. 197; 221 O.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Sutton (K.M.) (1999), 222 N.B.R.(2d) 78; 570 A.P.R. 78; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (C.A.), affd. in part [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595; 262 N.R. 384; 230 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 593 A.P.R. 205; 2000 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Mapara (S.) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358; 332 N.R. 244; 211 B.C.A.C. 1; 349 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Chang (A.) and Kullman (G.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 37; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 2003 CarswellOnt 1007 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Pilarinos (D.) et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 855; 2 C.R.(6th) 273; 2002 BCSC 855, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Côté and Vézina, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 2; 64 N.R. 93, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Renaud (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 355 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1975] A.C. 819 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Kirkwood (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 393 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Olan, Hudson and Hartnett, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175; 21 N.R. 504, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Allsop (1976), 64 Cr. App. Rep. 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Vallillee (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 409 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Knowles (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 237 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Hilliard (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 566 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Wagman (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 23 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Winning (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Champagne (1987), 19 Q.A.C. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Lyons (1910), 16 C.C.C. 152 (Que. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Timar (1968), 5 C.R.N.S. 195 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Théroux (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5; 151 N.R. 104; 54 Q.A.C. 184, refd to. [para. 129].

Maryland v. Lane (1984), 60 Md. App. 412; 483 A.2d 369 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), refd to. [para. 131].

Ohio v. Wells, 2009 WL 2894461 (Ohio 8th App. Dist.), refd to. [para. 132].

Ohio v. Foster (2009), 185 Ohio App.3d 117; 923 N.E.2d 227 (8th App. Dist.), refd to. [para. 132].

Texas v. Batts (2009), 302 S.W.3d 419 (14th App. Dist.), refd to. [para. 134].

Nevada v. Bacha (1921), 44 Nev. 373; 194 P. 1066 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 135].

Maryland v. Smith (1965), 237 Md. 573; 207 A.2d 493 (Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 135].

Massachusetts v. Duddie Ford Inc. (1990), 28 Mass. App. Ct. 426; 551 N.E.2d 1211 (App. Ct.), revd. in part (1991), 409 Mass. 387; 566 N.E.2d 1119 (Sup. Jud. Ct.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 195].

R. v. Parisé (A.M.) (1995), 166 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 425 A.P.R. 202; 1995 CarswellNB 451 (C.A.), revd. in part [1996] 3 S.C.R. 408; 202 N.R. 389; 179 N.B.R.(2d) 398; 455 A.P.R. 398, refd to. [para. 204].

R. v. Morozuk, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 31; 64 N.R. 189; 68 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 204].

R. v. Currie; R. v. Bruce (1984), 5 O.A.C. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Hansen, [1983] 4 W.W.R. 52; 43 A.R. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Tucker (1988), 83 N.S.R.(2d) 6; 210 A.P.R. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Hawrish (E.A.) (1993), 113 Sask.R. 214; 52 W.A.C. 214 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 856; 205 N.R. 390; 148 Sask.R. 241; 134 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, appld. [para. 248].

R. v. Prince, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 480; 70 N.R. 119; 45 Man.R.(2d) 93, consd. [para. 249].

R. v. Van Rassel, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 225; 105 N.R. 103; 27 Q.A.C. 285, consd. [para. 249].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewart, J. Douglas, Criminal Fraud (1986), p. 105 [para. 119].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (4th Ed.) (2009 Looseleaf Update) pp. 7-133 [para. 53]; 7-136 [para. 54].

Nightingale, Brenda L., The Law of Fraud (2009) (Looseleaf), p. 5-7 [para. 119].

Counsel:

None disclosed.

This case was heard by Bielby, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on September 27, 2010.