FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 224 times | Saved to 318 briefcases
R v Winning (1973), 12 CCC (2d) 449


Convicted of obtaining false credit from Eatons. Eatons did not rely on info they obtained.

AR of s.362(1)(b)
**Obtain Credit (forbidden consequence)
**False Pretences (forbidden act) or Fraud
***Fraud – dishonest act and deprivation


Did the misrepresentations cause Eatons to extend credit to her?


Even where Crown proves that the accused in fact caused the prohibited consequence, the accused may argue that his conduct contributed in such a minor way to the occurrence of the consequence that it should no count as a cause

But for the acts of the accused, the forbidden consequence would not have been brought about, then causation is satisfied

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.