Strict and Absolute Liability Flashcards
R v Beaver
Facts: Beaver’s accomplice sold drugs to an undercover cop, Beaver did not know the substance was drugs
Held: Courts will not say parliament intended that lack of knowledge is no defence UNLESS the words of the statute allowed for no other interpretation
Analysis:
• Cartright (Majority)
o Prima facie assumed guilty, but can exculpate himself by proving lack of knowledge
R v Pierce Fisheries
Facts: D fishery had illegal possession of undersized lobsters (26 UL out of 50K+ pounds of lobster), no evidence that D knew of the presence of UL, there was evidence D told buyers not to buy UL from them.
Held (Ritchie majority): Absolute liability offence. Unlike Beaver: This is merely a regulation, there isn’t much of a stigma here for paying fines for having UL, could just be cost of doing business. Also significant that statute has no words like knowingly/wilfully/intent/without lawful excuse, while they are in other sections of Fisheries Act (note: Cartwright would not agree with this analysis, would require express words saying no mens rea).
Dissent (Cartwright): same guy as majority in Beaver. D had no knowledge, and therefore not guilty. Parliament could have made express wording to make absolute liability but they did not.
R v SSM
Facts: Charge laid under s. 32(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act against city D for allowing materials to flow into water.
Held: New trial: Create third category of liability which should apply in this case:
1) Full mens rea (true crime)
2) Absolute liability (only when expressly stated by parliament)
3) Strict liability: Crown doesn’t need to prove mens rea but accused can avoid liability by showing they did what a reasonable man would do in the circumstances (public welfare offences)
Ref: BC Motor Vehicle Act
Issue: Is s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, as amended by the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Held: Absolute liability and imprisonment can’t combine: goes against s. 7 fundamental justice.
