the initial lending of the property in itself is not the act of theft. Once you requested it back you removed his colour of right to said property. You claim he has moved addresses, this could be considered " he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable" under 322 (2) because you no longer had knowledge of the location of your property.
Quote:
Theft
322 (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
Marginal note:Time when theft completed
(2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable.
|
To me it sounds like the RCMP are giving you the run around because they are not interested. My experiences with them showed many are unaware of the laws until you can prove said law exists. Sad state of affairs but unfortunately happens quite often.