R. v. Zlatic (Z.), (1993) 151 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 08, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 151 N.R. 81 (SCC);100 DLR (4th) 642;[1993] SCJ No 43 (QL);19 CR (4th) 230;54 QAC 161;151 NR 81;1993 CanLII 135 (SCC);[1993] 2 SCR 29;19 WCB (2d) 211

R. v. Zlatic (Z.) (1993), 151 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Zoran Zlatic (accused-appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(22342)

Indexed As: R. v. Zlatic (Z.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

April 8, 1993.

Summary:

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

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported (1991), 65 C.C.C.(3d) 86, dismissed the appeal. Zlatic appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., and Sopinka, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 2010

Fraudulent transactions - Fraud - Other fraudulent means - Zlatic used credit and postdated cheques to obtain merchandise from his suppliers - He resold the mer­chandise - Zlatic used the sale proceeds to gamble without really caring about paying his suppliers - However, Zlatic thought that his gambling method would prove successful and provide the necessary funds to pay his suppliers - Zlatic lost - He subsequently went bankrupt - He was charged with fraud and convicted - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the use of the sale proceeds for gambling rather than for paying suppliers constituted de­frauding by "other fraudulent means" under s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 1 to 30.

Droit criminel - Cote 2010

Transactions frauduleuses - Fraude - Autre moyen dolosif - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 2010 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 26 C.R.N.S. 1; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Olan et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175; 21 N.R. 504, refd to. [paras. 6, 35].

R. v. Théroux (1993), 151 N.R. 104 (S.C.C.), appld. [paras. 12, 31].

R. v. Black & Whiteside (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 313 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

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. 17].

R. v. Wagman (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 23 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Rosen (1979), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 342 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Côté and Vézina (No. 2) (1982), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hansen (1983), 43 A.R. 311; 25 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Geddes (1979), 2 Man.R.(2d) 339; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Currie; R. v. Bruce (1984), 5 O.A.C. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Kirkwood (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Allsop (1976), 64 Cr. App. R. 29 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Smith, [1963] 1 O.R. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Knelson and Baran (1962), 38 C.R. 181 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Welham v. Director of Public Prosecu­tions, [1961] A.C. 103 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Melnyk (1947), 90 C.C.C. 257 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Rodrigue, Arès and Nantel (1973), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 252 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Huggett (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 198 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Lemire, [1965] S.C.R. 174, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lafrance, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Cox, [1963] S.C.R. 500, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Reid (1940), 74 C.C.C. 156 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Charters (1957), 119 C.C.C. 223 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code/Code criminel, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 380(1) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewart, J. Douglas, Criminal Fraud (1986), p. 99 [paras. 18, 39].

Counsel:

Jeffrey K. Boro, for the accused;

André Brochu, for the Crown.

Solicitors of Record:

Shadley, Melançon & Assoc., Montreal, Que., for the accused;

André Brochu, Montreal, Que., for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on November 6, 1992, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, 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. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 30;

Sopinka, J., dissenting (Lamer, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 31 to 44.