SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: R. v. Coyle, 2004 NSSC 253
Date: 20041202
Docket: SH 208357A
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Leslie Coyle
Appellant
v.
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
LIBRARY HEADING
Judge: The Honourable Justice John D. Murphy
Heard: May 26, 2004, in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Final Written
Submissions: June 7, 2004
Subject: Criminal Law - Provincial Court Appeal - Employment Insurance Fraud
Summary: Appeal from Provincial Court convictions for failure to declare employment earnings while claiming E.I. benefit, contrary to s.135(1)(b.1) of Employment Insurance Act.
Person using Appellant’s name applied for E.I. benefit, providing information including social insurance number. Report cards pre‑printed with Appellant’s name and social insurance number were sent to Appellant’s address and returned to E.I. Commission, signed in Appellant’s name, indicating person identified had not worked or received income. Benefits were paid to Appellant based upon information contained in report cards. Evidence established that Appellant worked for three employers and received earnings during time periods overlapping with those during which report cards indicated she was not employed.
No evidence was introduced to show that the Appellant signed report cards containing false information.
Crown did not rely on statutory presumption that reports appearing to have been filed with Commission by the Accused are, in the absence of contrary evidence, proof cards were filed by the Accused. N.S. County Court in R. v. Beals (1991), 68 C.C.C.(3d) 277 had found that presumption violated guarantee to be presumed innocent under s.11(d) of the Charter, and was not saved under s.1 of the Charter.
Provincial Court Judge found that the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, inexorably pointed to the conclusion that Accused and no other person submitted the report cards, and, in the absence of an explanation by Accused, convicted.
Issue: Was verdict unreasonable because evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant made false statements?
Result: Appeal allowed and acquittal ordered.
As Crown failed to prove essential element, the identity of the person who completed the report cards, the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent reliance on the presumption, strict standard of proof set out in R. v. Beals adopted, and verdict set aside as unreasonable.
Court declined Crown request to examine transcript from Beals trial to compare factual information presented with evidence in this case. Appellate decision as written in Beals considered to be final, and another Court should not go behind the text of reasons for judgment. Doctrines of stare decisis and collateral attack preclude judicial review of one judgment in another action.
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S DECISION.
QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.