FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 247 times | Saved to 334 briefcases
R v Winning (1973), 12 CCC (2d) 449

Facts:

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

Issue(s):

Did the misrepresentations cause Eatons to extend credit to her?

Ratio:

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.