Regulatory Offences

Question 1

Absolute liability

Answer 1

No MR necessary, once crown establishes AR, offence is complete

Question 2

Advantages of absolute liability

Answer 2

Imposes a high standard of care for potential harmful, legitimate activities.
Reduces possibilities of acquittal on technical grounds relating to proving MR.
Incentive for people to take “precautionary measures, above and beyond those that would normally be taken.”
Administrative efficiency: there are just too many regulatory offences!

Question 3

Challenges to absolute liability

Answer 3

Punishes those without any moral culpability.
Freedom of choice issues: no deliberate choice to break law, yet punishment.
No evidence preventative measures actually cause people to be more careful.
Could breed disrespect and cynicism of the law.
Stigma is still attached, as well as financial and other losses.

Question 4

Strict liability

Answer 4

Maintains Crown requirement to only prove AR, but allows defendant to raise the defence of “due diligence” on a balance of probabilities.
General principle that only regulatory offences accept strict liability.

Question 5

Defence of Due Diligence

Answer 5

Must show that all due care was taken to prevent the consequence (Sault Ste Marie)

Question 6

3 Categories of Offences

Answer 6

True Crimes: offences in which the wording of the statute requires that the Crown prove full mens rea;
Strict liability offences: where Crown need not prove any MR elements but which permits accused to raise the defence of “due diligence“
Absolute liability offences: where no necessity for Crown to prove MR and no avoidance of liability by proving “due diligence.”

Question 7

Determining Classification of offences

Answer 7

Generally, regulatory offences will not be considered “true crimes” unless the legislation uses terms like, “wilfully” or “knowingly”.
Requires an element of MR be proven.
Regulatory offences are presumed to be strict liability unless the legislation indicates absolute liability be imposed.