FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,558 times | Saved to 289 briefcases
Lévis (City) v 2629?4470 Québec inc, [2006] 1 SCR 420, 2006 SCC 12

Facts:

#1. C had car on street that was not registered. C had paid fee and was told renewal would be in mail. C didn't put apt # on it so it was returned.

#2. T driving without a license. T was young and said didn’t know what date on license meant

Issue(s):

Is it a defence to be mislead as the law by a state official?

Ratio:

The defence of officially induced error is available in law

Analysis:

Defence of Official Induced Error – To meet must prove:
*That an error of law or of mixed law and fact was made
*That the person who committed the act considered the legal consequences of his or her actions
*That the advice obtained came from an appropriate official
*That the advice was reasonable (objective test)
*That the advice was erroneous, and
*That the person relied on the advice in committing the wrongful act (objective test)

Factors to look at for the reasonableness and the reliance on the advice:
**Efforts made by accused to obtain info, the clarity or obscurity of the law, position and role of the official who gave the info or opinion, and clarity, definitiveness and reasonableness of the info or opinion

Holding:

The offences in question are strict liability offences and the respondents have not shown that hey exercised due diligence

Comments:

It is not a defence to mislead as to the state of the law by a judge (Campbell)


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.