CRM 200 Final: Week 8 - 13 Exam Notes
Week 8: Regulatory Offences and Corporate Crime:
(Ch.6 – pg. 219-250)
Introduction: Absolute Liability Offences:
Require Crown to prove the prohibited act, but do not require proof of any fault
element (Mens Rea) such as knowledge or negligence
oDoes not require Mens Rea – Crown has to show that the accused has
committed the prohibited act beyond a reasonable doubt
Controversial nature of Absolute Liability Offences
oWhy would Absolute Liability be controversial?
Moral Innocence – absolutely no intention to violate the law; argument
raised that Absolute Liability offences that have a tendency to make the
morally innocent a criminal
Intention of Parliament
oCourts have said that offences require Absolute Liability – I.e., require no fault
element (Mens Rea)
oThey have to look at various things (wording of the statue and the intention of
parliament)
Availability of Imprisonment
oCases where the courts have stated that the Absolute Liability Offences will
violate their charter rights of Section 7 (cases below)
Offences that only require the prohibited act, aka the Actus Reus
Example – Driving offences, environmental protection, pollution
The Charter and Absolute Liability: pg. 225
All these cases Listed: Absolute Liability offences will generally violate the
Charter of Section 7 (Right to Life, Liberty and Security) when they attach to the
availability of imprisonment
oIt is wrong to imprison someone without some consideration of moral fault
oRaise some kind of defence or explanation as to why they did what they did
BC Motor Vehicle Reference Case (1985):
oDriving with a suspended licence
oAt the time of the case, in BC, there was an Absolute Liability Offence for
driving with a suspended licence – aka they would be convicted without any
consideration of a Fault Element (Mens Rea), therefore you are convicted of
an Actus Reus
oLeads to mandatory imprisonment
Infringement of Charter Rights Section 7: Right to Life, Liberty and Security
Section 94 Subsection 2 of the Motor Act was struck down
R. v. Burt (1987):
oEven if the Absolute Liability offences didn’t have a mandatory imprisonment,
but have a fine as the punishment, and if imprisonment was a possibility if the
fine isn’t paid would also violate the Charter of Section 7
1
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
R. v. Pontes (1995):
oSomewhat of a continuation from BC Motor Vehicle Reference Case (1985) –
was charged for driving with a suspended licence
oLaw of BC changed in 1995 – passed 2 Sections of the BC Offence Act
Section 4.1
Section 72(1)
State that no person should be liable to imprisonment and that non
payment of a fine will not result in imprisonment
oCourt said that the offence of driving with a suspended licence would not
infringe the Charter since imprisonment is not available
oIn this case there was another BC law that allowed him to get charged
R. v. 1260448 Ontario Inc. (2003):
oCommercial Context – Commercial Trucking Industry
oAbsolute Liability offence for providing a fine for a commercial vehicle
oPunished commercial vehicle when tires detached from vehicle
oChallenged the constitutionality of the offence – challenge was unsuccessful
because it clearly stated in the offence that nobody could be convicted as
there is no possibility of imprisonment
R. v. Hess (1990):
oWas an Absolute Liability offence to have sex with a girl under the age of 14 –
automatically will be guilty of Absolute Liability
oChallenged on Charter grounds – Challenge was successful because there was
an availability of imprisonment which violates the Section 7 of Charter
oAs a result, Section 150.1(4) of the CC was enacted and provides for some
limited consideration of a persons Fault Element (Mens Rea)
Need some kind of evidence to know the persons age
Allows for a limited defence (Due Diligence) in certain circumstances
For the accused to raise evidence that they have taken all reasonable steps
to ascertain the age of the defendant
Defences to Absolute Liability Offences: pg. 228
Defences only to the Actus Reus of the crime – Whether or not the accused
committed the crime in an involuntary (unthinking) manner
R. v. Hickey (1976):
oTried to challenge an Absolute Liability offence of speeding by showing that
his speedometer is faulty (was broken)
oCourt said that it does not leave room for any of the Fault Element (Absolute
Liability Offence)
Automatism (sleep walking/involuntary manner), Mental Disorder, Extreme
Intoxication: all defences that go to the Actus Reus of a crime and raise questions
about voluntariness
Necessity – speeding where saving a life is a necessity
oR. v. Kenndy (1972):
2
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
oR. v. Walker (1979):
oIn rare circumstances necessity might apply to an Absolute Liability Offence
Absolute Liability Offences: The Common Law Presumption Against Absolute
Liability:
R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City) (1978):
oEssentially created Strict Liability Offence
oFacts – city was charged with the offence of causing or promoting the
discharge of pollution – at the time was an Absolute Liability Offence
oShould be an offence that allows that accused the opportunity to show that he
had act with Due Diligence to avoid the commission of the offence
Determining Legislative Intent:
oSubject matter and regulatory pattern of the legislation
Court cant look to the actual words in the legislation, and they can also
look at any past history of the legislation
Pursue parliaments intent – what the parliament meant of the law
oLanguage used to define the offence
Clear legislation
oPENALTIES
oIn what instances will the court say that the offense is not an Absolute
Liability but instead a Strict Liability offence about moral fault ^
Examples of clear legislative intent:
oReference Re: Moto Vehicle Act (British Columbia) (1985)
Strict Liability Offences:
Limited defences of Due Diligence proved by accused on a balance of probabilities
A middle ground between Absolute Liability offences and full Mens Rea offences
No requirement for a Marked Departure
Require proof of Actus Reus, but allow for a middle ground – limited defence of
Due Diligence
Due Diligence Defence – simply someone saying that they acted reasonably and
took reasonable steps to prevent the outcome – only need to be prove on a
Balance of Probabilities
Standard for criminal guilt is the honour of reasonable doubt
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group (1991)
oCharged with false and misleading advertisement (regulatory offence)
oCourt said that Simple Negligence would be a sufficient fault element
oRegulatory context demand for Section 7 are met when reasonable standards
are present
Defence of Due Diligence: Pg. 230
Levis (City) v. Tetreault (2006):
oDue diligence requires more than passivity from the accused
oCharged with driving with an expired licence – Strict Liability Offence
3
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Week 8: regulatory offences and corporate crime: (ch. 6 pg. Moral innocence absolutely no intention to violate the law; argument raised that absolute liability offences that have a tendency to make the morally innocent a criminal. Intention of parliament: courts have said that offences require absolute liability i. e. , require no fault element (mens rea, they have to look at various things (wording of the statue and the intention of parliament) Availability of imprisonment: cases where the courts have stated that the absolute liability offences will violate their charter rights of section 7 (cases below) Offences that only require the prohibited act, aka the actus reus. Example driving offences, environmental protection, pollution. All these cases listed: absolute liability offences will generally violate the. Infringement of charter rights section 7: right to life, liberty and security. Section 94 subsection 2 of the motor act was struck down. Need some kind of evidence to know the persons age.
