R. v. Wightman (J.M.), 2003 ABPC 202

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 27, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABPC 202;(2003), 347 A.R. 153 (PC)

R. v. Wightman (J.M.) (2003), 347 A.R. 153 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. DE.054

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jacqueline Marie Wightman

(No. 030440465P1; 2003 ABPC 202)

Indexed As: R. v. Wightman (J.M.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

November 27, 2003.

Summary:

Wightman was charged with uttering a forged document, contrary to s. 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and possession of stolen property, contrary to s. 355(b).

The Alberta Provincial Court found Wightman not guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 1845

Offences against property - Possession of stolen goods - Essential elements - Guilty knowledge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1963 and Criminal Law - Topic 1972 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1870

Offences against property - Possession of stolen goods - Evidence and proof - Proof of guilty knowledge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1963 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1963

Offences against property - Forgery - Elements of offence - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the element of knowledge and the evidence of knowledge in the context of adjudicating on charges of possession of stolen property, contrary to ss. 354(1) and 355(b) of the Criminal Code, and uttering a forged document, contrary to s. 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 19 to 82.

Criminal Law - Topic 1972

Offences against property - Forgery - Uttering a forged document - Schaeffer owed Wightman $600 - Schaeffer's friend Billy gave Wightman a cheque payable to her in the amount of $920 - The cheque was a business cheque of a company called Christian Design and Maintenance (CDM) - Wightman was to cash the cheque at Money Mart, keep $600 and give the remainder to Schaeffer and Billy - The cheque was signed by one "S. Christian" - Money Mart called CDM for verification - Anderson, CDM's sole employee and sole person authorized to sign the company cheques, told Money Mart that there was no "S. Christian" working there and that the cheque was not authorized - Wightman was charged with uttering a forged document and possession of stolen property - The Alberta Provincial Court found Wightman not guilty - Wightman had to have actual knowledge that the cheque was not genuine or be wilfully blind to that fact - Although she might have been a great deal more prudent, the court found that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she was wilfully blind to the illegitimate nature of the cheque - Specifically, the court had a reasonable doubt that Wightman believed that the cheque would be honoured by CDM.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 3 C.R.(4th) 302; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Gaysek (1971), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 545 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Nuosci (1991), 51 O.A.C. 41; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 64 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1992), 139 N.R. 160; 56 O.A.C. 159; 71 C.C.C.(3d) vii (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Ogilvie (F.) (1993), 54 Q.A.C. 52; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Jones, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 284 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Cowan (1962), 132 C.C.C. 352 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Sebo (1988), 87 A.R. 141; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 536 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Keshane (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 542 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Paquette (1974), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 57 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1975), 45 C.C.C.(2d) 575 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Lapointe (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Valois (1986), 65 N.R. 271; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Hawrish (1986), 56 Sask.R. 248; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 446 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45].

Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193, consd. [para. 52].

R. v. Raglon (K.H.), [2002] 2 W.W.R. 385; 295 A.R. 71 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Vinokurov (D.) (2001), 281 A.R. 176; 248 W.A.C. 176; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Currie (1975), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 292 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 59].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223, consd. [para. 64].

R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55; 189 N.R. 1; 87 O.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 97, consd. [para. 68].

R. v. Barbeau (1996), 110 C.C.C.(3d) 69 (Que. C.A.), consd. [para. 70].

R. v. Souter (D.N.) (1998), 216 A.R. 292; 175 W.A.C. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 354(1) [para. 21]; sect. 368 [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law (1982), generally [para. 63].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: the General Part (2nd Ed. 1960), pp. 157 to 160 [para. 63].

Counsel:

J. Morgan, for the Crown;

D. MacEachern, for the defendant.

This matter was heard by Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court who delivered the following decision on November 27, 2003.