LAW 534 Study Guide - Final Guide: Actus Reus, Mens Rea
30 Nov 2017
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Many regulatory statutes have created a particular type of offence regarding whether a director or officer authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the offence. Here we are talking about individual liability, not the liability of the organization although that is a related concept. Do acquiescence provisions (i. e. ones using words like authorize , permit or. The argument is that you have to know what it is you are authorizing, permitting or acquiescing to implies a certain degree of knowledge. Problem in the case law: there are two different conflicting positions on this. R. v. felderhof court finds that director acquiescence provisions are strict liability offences because there are no words like wilful etc. No mental element involved, if you saw you are liable. R. v. peterson court finds director acquiescence offences are actually full mens question rea offences. Interesting facts including that the court quoted an ontario case but not the felderhof decision since peterson was in ontario.
