CRM 2300B Week 8: Regulatory Offences in Canada

Breaches of regulations, typically involving less severe penalties than true crimes. Often relate to things like trade, commerce, advertising, or driving, and concern the enforcement of a regulatory scheme that addresses inherently legitimate activities.

A regulatory offence where the defendant is held responsible even if they didn't intend to break the law. Proof of fault is not needed.

A regulatory offence where the defendant is held responsible regardless of fault, negligence, or intent. The act of breaking the regulation is enough to be guilty.

A body of law that includes regulatory offences and falls between criminal and civil law.

Crimes covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, involving serious breaches of fundamental community values.

The main body of law defining true crimes in Canada.

Set of rules and regulations. These address legitimate activities and create standards of conduct.

An established level of caution required in certain regulated activities to ensure safety and well-being of all members of society.

When someone is considered morally responsible for wrong-doing.

The legal strategy in regulatory offence cases that allows defendants to argue against accusations of negligence, asserting innocence in a manner of negligence caused by circumstances beyond their control

Crimes where the Crown doesn't need to prove intent (mens rea), but the accused can use the "due diligence" defense.

A compromise between proving full intent and automatic conviction for regulatory offenses; the Crown proves the act, and the accused proves lack of negligence.

The physical act of committing a crime.

Criminal intent or mental state.

Supreme Court ruling endorsing the "half-way house" approach for most regulatory offenses.

A defense for strict liability offences that allows the accused to show they acted with reasonable care.

Crimes requiring the prosecution to show full intent or mental state in the crime.

Offences where the Crown doesn't need to prove intent (mens rea) and the accused can't avoid liability by showing due diligence.

Acting with proper care and attention; using reasonable efforts to comply to avoid liability.

Certain Criminal Code offences that could potentially have strict liability.

Supreme Court decisions about balancing absolute liability laws with the rights set out in the country's constitution.

The regulatory pattern, subject matter, penalty severity, and precise wording must be considered when deciding if an offence would meet this standard.

The Supreme Court of Canada hasn't decided if the potential for imprisonment in a regulatory offence includes going to jail for non-payment of a fine.

This case showed when courts strike down regulatory laws. It happened because the law had absolute liability and a potential for imprisonment.

The Pontes case ruled that absolute liability itself doesn't violate Charter rights, but it becomes problematic when combined with a potential for imprisonment.

The Rube case highlights how courts try to avoid classifying an offence as having absolute liability because it could mean the law is unconstitutional.

Canadian courts are cautious about declaring regulatory laws invalid. They prefer to interpret the law broadly to ensure regulations can be enforced without violating the Charter.

The possibility of imprisonment makes regulatory offences especially sensitive to Charter restrictions, as it raises concerns about fairness and due process.

Canadian courts are hesitant to declare regulatory laws with potential for imprisonment valid because 'mens rea', or a guilty mind, is usually needed to justify imprisonment.