Is proof of the precise entity having ownership not essential?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from R. v. Bonamy, 2000 BCCA 308 (CanLII):
Support for the respondent’s argument that proof of the precise entity having ownership is not essential may be found in the reasoning of the majority in Little and Wolski v. The Queen (1974), 1974 CanLII 201 (SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 20, 19 C.C.C. (2d) 385 (S.C.C.). While that case involved a charge of theft under the Criminal Code, the analysis has application in relation to count 2.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for establishing that registered ownership reflects the actual ownership of a property? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof and onus of proof in law? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is history of ownership a factor that the court will consider in determining the ownership of a property? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have the courts in BC dealt with the issue of proof of loss at the commencement of trial in a case where the loss had taken place as soon as practicable? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof in evaluating a hypothetical result? (British Columbia, Canada)
What standard of proof does a hypothetical event meet? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof required for assessing a loss of income before a loss is determined? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of proof at common law? (British Columbia, Canada)
What evidence does the respondent need to provide to support a pleading of beneficial ownership at the time the land was transferred? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the effect of the Charter on the ownership of a home? (British Columbia, Canada)
