« Peine pour Fraude » : différence entre les versions

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 380;

L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 54; {{LegHistory90s|1994, ch. 44}}, art. 25; {{LegHistory90s|1997, ch. 18}}, art. 26;

{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1) a) {{DescrSec|380(1) a)}}<br>À partir de 15 septembre 2004| {{NA}} | {{Max14Years}}}}

{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1) b) {{DescrSec|380(1) b)}}| {{Summary}} | {{summaryconviction}} }}

{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1) b) {{DescrSec|380(1) b)}}| {{Indictment}} | {{Max2Years}} }}

{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1) a) {{DescrSec|380(1) a)}}<br>Until 14 septembre 2004| {{NA}} |{{Max10Years}}}}

{{MaxPenaltyIndictment|art. 380(1) a) {{DescrSec|380(1) a)}}|'''{{Max14Years}}'''}}

{{MaxPenaltyHybrid|art. 380(1) b) {{DescrSec|380(1) b)}}|'''{{Max2Years}}'''|'''{{summaryconviction}}'''}}

|art. 380(1) b) {{DescrSec|380(1) b)}} || quelconque || {{SProfileAll}}  

|art. 380(1) a) {{DescrSec|380(1) a)}}<br>Nov. 20, 2012 onward || {{NA}} || {{SProfileNoDischargeOrCSO}}

|art. 380(1) a) {{DescrSec|380(1) a)}}<br>15 septembre 2004 to Nov. 20, 2012 || {{NA}} || {{SProfileNoDischarge}}

|art. 380(1) a) {{DescrSec|380(1) a)}}<br>Until 14 septembre 2004 || {{NA}} || {{SProfileAll}}

{{CanLIIRP|Williams|1r934|2007 CanLII 13949 (ONSC)|[2007] O.J. 1604}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atsL|1r934|26| à 28}} ( {{Tr}}« The sentencing option of a conditional sentence is not excluded from consideration in breach of trust fraud cases » ) <br>

R. v. Bertram and Wood (1990), 40 O.A.C. 317, au p. 319 (in most major frauds “[t]he sentences in such cases are not really concerned with rehabilitation. Instead, they are concerned with general deterrence and with warning such persons that substantial penitentiary sentences will follow this type of crime, to say nothing of the serious disgrace to them and everyone connected with them and their probable financial ruin."

voir également {{CanLIIRP|Pravo|htn8f|2018 ONSC 4889 (CanLII)|[2018] OJ No 4361}}{{perONSC|Molloy J}}{{AtL|htn8f|23}} ( {{Tr}}« There is considerable legitimate debate as to whether significant sentences imposed on offenders truly have a deterrent effect, either for the individual offender or for others who might be tempted to commit similar crimes. However, it is well recognized that if deterrence is relevant at all, it is particularly so for crimes of this nature, involving individuals who are intelligent and who deliberately set out to plan and execute sophisticated frauds. It is important that such individuals be aware that the significant risk of a long jail term outweighs any benefit or financial reward they may obtain from the fraud.  » )

R. v. Ryan [1976] 6 H.W.R. 668 at 670 McDermid. J.A ( {{Tr}}« A great deal of confidence has been reposed in the legal profession by the public and by the legislature; they are entrusted with large sums of money and with large matters where integrity is most necessary. It is imperative that the reputation of the profession be maintained and, ... it must be made clear that a lawyer receives no more favourable treatment than the general public.”)

{{CanLIIRP|Thurrott|g1hmp|1971 CanLII 381 (ON CA)|5 CCC (2d) 129}}{{perONCA|Gale CJ}}{{atp|129}} ( {{Tr}}« this Court is unanimously of the opinion that the paramount consideration in determining the sentence is the element of deterrence.  Welfare authorities have enough difficulties without having to put up with persons who set out to defraud them. » )</ref>  

{{CanLIIRP|Bates|htwkv|1972 CanLII 1403 (ONSC)|9 CCC (2d) 74 (Ont.Co.Ct.)}}{{perONSC|Moore J}}{{atp|74}} ( {{Tr}}« The cardinal principle in the determination of a sentence is the protection of the public. » )

Toute tentative malhonnête d'obtenir de l'argent {{Tr}}« constitue un crime grave ayant ses propres effets, même si l'institution [victime] semble à première vue capable de supporter la perte. »<ref>

The reference to "large number of victims" under s. 380.1 (1) c) of the code will include a group of more than 50 people.<ref>

{{CanLIIR|Drabinsky|fn2mg|2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII)}}{{atL|fn2mg|173}} ( {{Tr}}« Whether the absence of "pure greed" is viewed as a mitigating factor or simply as the absence of an aggravating factor would seem to make little difference in the ultimate calculation. » )

{{ibid1|Drabinsky}}{{atL|fn2mg|173}} ( {{Tr}}« We agree that cases properly characterized as "scams" will normally call for significantly longer sentences than frauds committed in the course of the operation of a legitimate business. » )

{{CanLIIRP|Drabinsky|fn2mg|2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|fn2mg|160}} ( {{Tr}}« In any event, this court and all other provincial appellate courts have repeatedly held that denunciation and general deterrence must dominate sentencing for large-scale commercial frauds. Denunciation and general deterrence most often find expression in the length of the jail term imposed. » )

{{CanLIIR|Davatgar-Jafarpour|j02ms|2019 ONCA 353 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Roberts JA}}{{AtL|j02ms|34}} ( {{Tr}}« In cases of large-scale fraud, the range of sentences imposed in circumstances like the one at bar is generally three to five years » )<br>

{{CanLIIRx|Cunsolo|g6s86|2014 ONCA 364 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|g6s86|53}}( {{Tr}}« The jurisprudence of this court indicates that conditional sentences are not appropriate in cases involving convictions for large-scale fraud.  Penitentiary sentences are typically imposed in such cases » )<Br>

{{CanLIIRP|Leo-Mensah|287j6|2010 ONCA 139 (CanLII)|101 O.R. (3d) 366}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}}, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 170 ( {{Tr}}« a penitentiary sentence is the norm, not the exception, in cases of large-scale fraud and in which there are no extraordinary mitigating circumstances » )<br>

| [[Ordonnances ADN]] ||art. 380(1) a) ou (2) ||

* {{SecondDNA(AorB)|art. 380(1) a) et (2)}}  

; Références