R. v. Théroux (R.), (1993) 151 N.R. 104 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 08, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 151 N.R. 104 (SCC);19 CR (4th) 194;54 QAC 184;79 CCC (3d) 449;JE 93-793;[1993] CarswellQue 2040;[1993] 2 SCR 5;AZ-93111041;1993 CanLII 134 (SCC);[1993] SCJ No 42 (QL);100 DLR (4th) 624;19 WCB (2d) 212;[1993] ACS no 42;151 NR 104

R. v. Théroux (R.) (1993), 151 N.R. 104 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Robert Théroux (accused-appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(22249)

Indexed As: R. v. Théroux (R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

April 8, 1993.

Summary:

The Quebec Court of Sessions of the Peace (Lefrançois, J.) found Théroux guilty of fraud. Théroux appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported [1991] R.J.Q. 79; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 526, dismissed the appeal. Théroux appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 2001

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - What constitutes fraud - Théroux was the di­recting mind of a company involved in residential construction - Clients would leave a deposit when ordering a house - The company represented that the deposits were insured - That representation was knowingly false - However, Théroux believed that construction could be com­pleted - The company went bankrupt - Many clients lost their deposit - Théroux was charged with fraud - The Supreme Court of Canada, after discussion, held that both the actus reus and mens rea of fraud were present and affirmed a conviction entered at first instance.

Droit criminel - Cote 2001

Transactions frauduleuses - Fraude - En quoi consiste la fraude - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 2001 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2003

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Intent to defraud - Théroux was the directing mind of a company involved in residential con­struction - Clients would leave a deposit when ordering a house - The company represented that the deposits were insured - That representation was knowingly false - However, Théroux believed that con­struction could be completed - The com­pany went bankrupt - Many clients lost their deposit - Théroux was charged with fraud - The Supreme Court of Canada, after discussion, held that both the actus reus and mens rea of fraud were present and affirmed a conviction entered at first instance.

Droit criminel - Cote 2003

Transactions frauduleuses - Fraude - Intention de frauder - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 2003 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2005

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Elements of fraud - Théroux was the directing mind of a company involved in residential construction - Clients would leave a deposit when ordering a house - The company represented that the deposits were insured - That representation was knowingly false - However, Théroux believed that construction could be com­pleted - The company went bankrupt - Many clients lost their deposit - Théroux was charged with fraud - The Supreme Court of Canada, after discussion, held that both the actus reus and mens rea of fraud were present and affirmed a conviction entered at first instance.

Droit criminel - Cote 2005

Transactions frauduleuses - Fraude - Eléments de fraude - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 2005 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Olan et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175; 21 N.R. 504, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Doren (1982), 36 O.R.(2d) 114 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Kirkwood (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Black & Whiteside (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 313 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

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. 15].

R. v. Wagman (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 23 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Rosen (1979), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 342 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Côté and Vézina (No. 2) (1982), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (Qué. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hansen (1983), 43 A.R. 311; 25 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Geddes (1979), 2 Man.R.(2d) 339; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Currie; R. v. Bruce (1984), 5 O.A.C. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Welham v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [1961] A.C. 103 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Melnyk (1947), 90 C.C.C. 257 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Rodrigue, Arès and Nantel (1973), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 252 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Allsop (1976), 64 Cr. App. R. 29 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Huggett (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 198 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lafrance, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Bobbie (1988), 29 O.A.C. 303; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lacroix, [1989] R.J.Q. 812; 22 Q.A.C. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Daigle (1987), 9 Q.A.C. 140 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Sebe (1987), 57 Sask.R. 256; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Mugford (1990), 91 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 268 A.P.R. 91; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Landy, [1981] 1 All E.R. 1172 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 30].

R. v. Ghosh, [1982] 2 All E.R. 689 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 30].

R. v. Long (1990), 61 C.C.C.(3d) 156 (B.C.C.A.), folld. [para. 31].

R. v. Zlatic (1993), 151 N.R. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. DeSousa [1992], 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code/Code criminel, R.S.C. 1927, c. 36, sect. 444 [para. 11].

Criminal Code/Code criminel, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 380(1)(a) [para. 7].

Theft Act, 1968 (U.K./R.U.), 1968, c. 60, sect. 1, sect. 15(1) [para. 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewart, J. Douglas, Criminal Fraud (1986), p. 9 [para. 12].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 727; 728 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Jean-Claude Hébert and Eric Downs, for the accused;

Marcel Patenaude and Léopold Goulet, for the Crown.

Solicitors of Record:

Hébert & Bourque, Montreal, Que., for the accused;

Marcel Patenaude, Longueuil, Que., for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on November 3, 1992, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heu­reux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on April 8, 1993 and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, J. (La Forest, Gonthier and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 41;

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 42 to 44;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 45 and 46.