Majority
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Sopinka J.
Sopinka J. -- In light of the findings of fact of the trial judge (1994), 153 N.B.R. (2d) 72, which we accept, there was no evidence in this case upon which a court properly instructed could reasonably find that the appellant’s conduct had created a risk of deprivation of an amount in excess of $1,000.
We are satisfied that the trial judge accepted the evidence of the appellant that she honestly believed that her circumstances had not changed so as to affect her entitlement to income assistance. In view of this finding, an essential element of the mens rea for the offence was negated.
Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in law in acquitting the appellant, and the Court of Appeal (1995), 166 N.B.R. (2d) 202, was wrong to interfere.
The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the acquittal is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Fowler & Fowler, Moncton.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton.
Cases cited
- 153 N.B.R. (2d) 72 153 N.B.R. (2d) 72
- 166 N.B.R. (2d) 202 166 N.B.R. (2d) 202