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. Corporate 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 deconstruct everything and look at it
- Problem is unless u can show the board knew about it, corporation was not liable.
Disconnected. Encourages board of directors to insulate itself from operations.
- Based on this Bill C45 expanded criminal liability by what it is to be a senior officer
attribute criminal intent now, includes managers, officers, or control over important
aspects 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 – senior officers for attributing intent towards criminal offence, and lower level /
officers (Payette) Lower level is also seen as senior b/c of their price fixing abilities
- too much delegation of lower level employees gets whole corporation liable
- 5-19 – he was found to be a senior manager in price fixing
- “Unduly vague, the case law....” 5.19, charter challenge, jurisprudence
- Independent contractors –
o Georjo and Khayman co. produce substances and they have HR Matthew
and some contractors.
o 5.22 – Metron Construction Court Case – working on balconies and high
rise buildings, it collapsed, died. Only 2 lifelines available, no max weight
known, rented line, they had recently ingested marijuana. 5.23 – “clearly
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 contracts 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 “supposed” 2 step analysis:
(1) – whether or not representative was reckless, (2) senior
management took steps to take care of the harm
o 5-26 – “we are of view that 2 stage test is not allowed unless contractor
manages important part of organization” o 5-28.1 – 3 ways criminal code sets out separate ways which