FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,422 times | Saved to 330 briefcases
R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 SCR 154

Facts:

W charged with false mislead advertising. Act sets forth defence of due diligence, but s.37.3(b) says that you can be convicted anyways is you become aware of X and don’t do what is reasonable to bring it to attention of public = no defence of due diligence

Ratio:

Proof of negligence or allowing a due diligence defence is sufficient to comply with s.7.
Strict liability that has the possibility of imprisonment does not violate the Charter if a due diligence defence is provided to the accused.

Analysis:

Justification for Differential Treatment
**Licensing Concept
***License implies they accepted the risk
**Vulnerability Justification
***Regulatory legislation is essential to the operation of industrial society.

PFJ’s do not require proof of full MR for regulatory or negligence offences. s.11(d) – strict liability do no violate the presumption of innocence

Holding:

Strict liability that has potential of imprisonment does not violate s.7


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.