This essay will look at landmark cases in the development of strict and absolute liability, and its relationship with regulatory offences for the purposes of demonstrating how the balances of mens rea and actus reus, and charter rights with individual statues. In doing so, the essay will show how these balances and their changes represent shifts in understandings and definings of morality and criminality. The essay will first look at the famous historical case of Sault Ste. Marie, Levis v. Tetreault, and Commander Business Furniture. To demonstrate the evolution of judicial interpretation, this essay will also explore Motor Vehicle Act, R. v. Ponte, R.v. Ontario Inc, and R. v. Hess. The ways in which strict liability strikes a balance between
…show more content…
Trétreault (2006) in Quebec, when a man who had been advised he would receive a notice sixty days before his licence and licence plates expired, did not receive this notice and continued, therefore, to drive with expired papers. For this case the court used Sue Ste. Marie as case law and decided that this case would fall under strict liability. As per the principles established in Sue Ste. Marie, the burden of proof falls to the defence to prove on a balance of probabilities that Levis was not negligent in driving his car without a licence, and that under the circumstances he believed his actions were not illegal. However, the court was also cognisant of the fact that this case would determine the “the nature and availability of the defence” (Levis p.14) because this case evoked specifically the principle of officially included error in which the accused is misled by facts given by state officials, effectively raising questions such as: what is the reach of strict liability defences for regulatory offences? What is the availability of this defence and to what extent will it impose penal liability on regulatory offences? The court desired to “firmly and consistently apply the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence” (Lewis p.15) in order to appeal to the criminal grounds in which strict liability is embedded. Equally, in …show more content…
Tetreault 14, II) of due diligence, mistake of fact, and mistake of law: specifically, whether officially induced error should be available under the law. In this case, Tetreault committed a crime against s 93.1 of the criminal code, which deals with the operating of a vehicle whose licence and or licence plates have been expired. According to the case, Tetreault satisfied the actus reus component of the offences, but did so under the impression, supported by his automobile company, that his licence was not yet expired and that he would receive a 60-day notice prior to the time when it did expire. In order to ratify this, the court of appeal used strict liability in order to permit investigation into the due diligence of Tetreault and the viability of his mistake of fact. The courts wished to “firmly and consistently apply the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence” (Lewis v. Tetreault 15, II), but also create a sire of compromise between mens rea and absolute liability, thus emerging with the following principles (Lewis v. Tetreault 19-20,
Trétreault (2006) in Quebec, when a man who had been advised he would receive a notice sixty days before his licence and licence plates expired, did not receive this notice and continued, therefore, to drive with expired papers. For this case the court used Sue Ste. Marie as case law and decided that this case would fall under strict liability. As per the principles established in Sue Ste. Marie, the burden of proof falls to the defence to prove on a balance of probabilities that Levis was not negligent in driving his car without a licence, and that under the circumstances he believed his actions were not illegal. However, the court was also cognisant of the fact that this case would determine the “the nature and availability of the defence” (Levis p.14) because this case evoked specifically the principle of officially included error in which the accused is misled by facts given by state officials, effectively raising questions such as: what is the reach of strict liability defences for regulatory offences? What is the availability of this defence and to what extent will it impose penal liability on regulatory offences? The court desired to “firmly and consistently apply the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence” (Lewis p.15) in order to appeal to the criminal grounds in which strict liability is embedded. Equally, in …show more content…
Tetreault 14, II) of due diligence, mistake of fact, and mistake of law: specifically, whether officially induced error should be available under the law. In this case, Tetreault committed a crime against s 93.1 of the criminal code, which deals with the operating of a vehicle whose licence and or licence plates have been expired. According to the case, Tetreault satisfied the actus reus component of the offences, but did so under the impression, supported by his automobile company, that his licence was not yet expired and that he would receive a 60-day notice prior to the time when it did expire. In order to ratify this, the court of appeal used strict liability in order to permit investigation into the due diligence of Tetreault and the viability of his mistake of fact. The courts wished to “firmly and consistently apply the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence” (Lewis v. Tetreault 15, II), but also create a sire of compromise between mens rea and absolute liability, thus emerging with the following principles (Lewis v. Tetreault 19-20,