1. Risk management relationship to law
2. Classification of offence (mens rea (intentional), strict, absolute)
3. Actus reus }
4. Due diligence }strict liability for both
5. Corpora te criminal liability
6. Directing minds in regulatory offences
Directing minds in regulatory offence – directing minds had to direct their minds to due diligence
What is main problem that we face? Conviction = intention + act, how do u show what
corporation intended to do because it is not an individual person?
- Find ways to attribute liability, you look at the directing mind through Dredge Dock
Case test. You decons truct everything and look at it
- Problem is unless u can show the board knew about it, corporation was not liable.
Disco nnected. Encourages board of directors to insulate itse lf from operations.
- Based on this Bill C45 expand ed criminal liability by what it is to be a se nior officer
attribute criminal intent now, includes managers, officers, or control over important
aspec ts of business b/c they represent corporations mind.
- Bill C45 is used for Federal Law
- Dredge Dock Case still exists b/c it still exists in Provincial Law
- Pg 5.16 – 5.17 –Global Fuel important aspect of organization’s activities – case of
- 5-18 – se nior officers for attributing intent towards criminal offence, and lower level /
officers (Payette) Lower level is also seen as se nior b/c of their price fixing abilities
- too much delegation of lower level employee s gets whole corporation liable
- 5-19 – he was found to be a se nior manager in price fixing
- “Unduly vague, the case law....”5.19, charter challenge, jurisprudence
- Independent contractors –
o Georjo and Khayman co. produce subs tances and they have HR Matthew
and some contractors.
o 5.22 – Metron Construction Court Case – working on balconies and high
rise buildings, it collapse d, died. Only 2 lifelines available, no max weight
known, rented line, they had recently ingested marijuana. 5.23 – “clea rly
o Thus employers in Canada can be held criminally liable for their employees.
Under criminal code, independent contracts can get the employer in trouble.
When you choose con tracts chose someone reliable + can trust is following
the law. Just as important to screen these guys out as it is for our own
employees for high-risk industries.
o 5-24 – “although they did goods things, it wasn’t enough to same them on this
o 5-25 – lawyers argued that it should be a “suppose d”2 step analysis:
♣ (1) – whether or not represe ntative was rec kless , (2) se nior