Question 1 Before determining whether or not Slackbridge is guilty of the charge, it is important to determine whether the offence committed here is one of absolute or strict liability. To do such, it is important to examine the criteria for distinguishing between strict and absolute liability of regulatory offences, particularly pertaining to the language of the legislation. According to Justice MacPherson, by stating “no person shall” in the language of the legislation, it points to absolute liability, likewise, this is also applies to the Retail Sales Act for retailers. Therefore, if one were to follow this, Slackbridge would have absolute liability, and thus, be guilty of the charge; however, a problem could arise as Slackbridge could
…show more content…
Depending on is being questioned, the fine of five thousand dollars would in all likelihood not constitute to a severe penalty as it does not impose imprisonment, thus, strict liability would not be used. However, if it were to be used, then the accused must then prove they were not negligent, and acted under of a reasonable mistake of fact, and a reasonable person would make the same mistake in the same circumstances. In a similar case of London Excavators & Trucking Ltd. (1998), were the accused company had worked with a general contractor considered to be of “knowledgeable and reliable”, and had been ensure that the site had been cleared of any gas, electrical and other services. Nonetheless, this was not the case and as the backhoe operator being unaware of the hydro duct, the backhoe operator penetrated it and an explosion occurred, and the accused was convicted since they not establish they had taken every reasonable precaution. Similarly, the loaf Slackbridge purchased from Crusty Bakery was a bakery that Slackbridge felt was reliable, nonetheless, by putting the loaf out for sale demonstrates that Slackbridge did not taken every reasonable precaution, and hence, under this objective test of strict liability, Slackbridge would be …show more content…
19, both would be regulatory offences, in which section 30(1) and (2) would require the mens rea of strict liability. In terms of section 30(1), to act knowingly of the prohibited consequence would displays intention, knowledge, and negligence, and therefore, it would not need to be determined if the person was or was not negligent, as it would be obvious they were. Nevertheless, an individual charged with section 30(1) and with absolute liability, could claim that in doing so, with the presence in mind of the penalties being severe in the of maximum of $500,000, $200,000 or even imprisonment for no more than a year, infringes on their section 7 Charter right. For instance, in the case of Raham (2010), the accused was charged with “stunt driving”, with it carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, and due to this the court found that characterize it as absolute liability would be struck down by section 7 due to the possibility of imprisonment, thus, strict liability. Similarly, since there would be the possibility of imprisonment under section 30(1), the court would likely have to proceed with strict liability for the sake of absolute liability not being struck down by section 7 of the Charter. Under section 30(2), it is likely to be classified as strict liability by allowing the chance for the accused to demonstrate that they were not negligent; however, by not inquiring of the age
Depending on is being questioned, the fine of five thousand dollars would in all likelihood not constitute to a severe penalty as it does not impose imprisonment, thus, strict liability would not be used. However, if it were to be used, then the accused must then prove they were not negligent, and acted under of a reasonable mistake of fact, and a reasonable person would make the same mistake in the same circumstances. In a similar case of London Excavators & Trucking Ltd. (1998), were the accused company had worked with a general contractor considered to be of “knowledgeable and reliable”, and had been ensure that the site had been cleared of any gas, electrical and other services. Nonetheless, this was not the case and as the backhoe operator being unaware of the hydro duct, the backhoe operator penetrated it and an explosion occurred, and the accused was convicted since they not establish they had taken every reasonable precaution. Similarly, the loaf Slackbridge purchased from Crusty Bakery was a bakery that Slackbridge felt was reliable, nonetheless, by putting the loaf out for sale demonstrates that Slackbridge did not taken every reasonable precaution, and hence, under this objective test of strict liability, Slackbridge would be …show more content…
19, both would be regulatory offences, in which section 30(1) and (2) would require the mens rea of strict liability. In terms of section 30(1), to act knowingly of the prohibited consequence would displays intention, knowledge, and negligence, and therefore, it would not need to be determined if the person was or was not negligent, as it would be obvious they were. Nevertheless, an individual charged with section 30(1) and with absolute liability, could claim that in doing so, with the presence in mind of the penalties being severe in the of maximum of $500,000, $200,000 or even imprisonment for no more than a year, infringes on their section 7 Charter right. For instance, in the case of Raham (2010), the accused was charged with “stunt driving”, with it carrying a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, and due to this the court found that characterize it as absolute liability would be struck down by section 7 due to the possibility of imprisonment, thus, strict liability. Similarly, since there would be the possibility of imprisonment under section 30(1), the court would likely have to proceed with strict liability for the sake of absolute liability not being struck down by section 7 of the Charter. Under section 30(2), it is likely to be classified as strict liability by allowing the chance for the accused to demonstrate that they were not negligent; however, by not inquiring of the age