[LS 202] - Final Exam Guide - Ultimate 43 pages long Study Guide!
29 Nov 2016
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Consequences of a prohibited act (as speci c as possible) Case: r v theroux (1993) appellant - at the scc. He was the guy who called the shots in the home building company. Theroux was charged with fraud because the homes were never built. He had an honest belief they would be built, but never led for the insurance and kept accepting money. Claimed homes were insured (explicitly and implicitly) S. 380(1) - everyone who by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent meansdefrauds pubic or any person. (a) - is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. Objective question for subjective fault; willfully misguided= knew consequences. He should have known it was going to be disadvantaging his clients to take money without insurance. Actus reas - he was lying because he knew he didn"t have insurance. The lie gave the intent that it was bad.
