R. v. City of Sault Ste-Marie
Encyclopedia
R. v. City of Sault Ste-Marie [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299 is a Supreme Court of Canada
case where the Court defines the three types of offences that exist in Canadian criminal law and further defines the justification for "public welfare" offences.
hired Cherokee Disposal to dispose of the city's waste. The city built a disposal site 20 feet from a stream which, when filled by the disposal company, resulted in waste seeping into the stream. The city was charged with discharging, or permitting to be discharged, refuse into the public waterways causing pollution pursuant to section 32(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
The issue before the court was whether the city's offence should be classified as strict liability or absolute liability. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the charge required proof of mens rea
which on the facts would acquit the defendant.
, the Court recognized three categories of offences:
To distinguish between these types the Court examines:
The Court then noted that the dumping offences were of a public welfare nature and were from a provincial statute, thus, were Strict Liability offences and do not require mens rea.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
case where the Court defines the three types of offences that exist in Canadian criminal law and further defines the justification for "public welfare" offences.
Background
The city of Sault Ste. Marie, OntarioSault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Sault Ste. Marie is a city on the St. Marys River in Algoma District, Ontario, Canada. It is the third largest city in Northern Ontario, after Sudbury and Thunder Bay, with a population of 74,948. The community was founded as a French religious mission: Sault either means "jump" or "rapids" in...
hired Cherokee Disposal to dispose of the city's waste. The city built a disposal site 20 feet from a stream which, when filled by the disposal company, resulted in waste seeping into the stream. The city was charged with discharging, or permitting to be discharged, refuse into the public waterways causing pollution pursuant to section 32(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
The issue before the court was whether the city's offence should be classified as strict liability or absolute liability. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the charge required proof of mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
which on the facts would acquit the defendant.
Reasoning
In the judgement written by Chief Justice DicksonBrian Dickson
Robert George Brian Dickson, , commonly known as Brian Dickson, was appointed Chief Justice of Canada on April 18, 1984. He retired on June 30, 1990 and died October 17, 1998.-Career:...
, the Court recognized three categories of offences:
- True Crimes: Offences that require some positive state of mind (mens rea) as an element of the crime. These offences are usually implied by the use of language within the charge such as "knowingly", "willfully", or "intentionally".
- Strict Liability: Offences that do not require the proof of mens reaMens reaMens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
. The act alone is punishable. The duty is on the accused to have acted as a reasonable personReasonable personThe reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured...
and has a defence of reasonable mistake of fact (a due diligence defence). The Court stated that the due diligence defence "will be available if the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or omission innocent, or if he took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event. These offences may properly be called offences of strict liability." The reason for this is that the Court described a need for a class of offence that had a lower standard to convict than True Crimes but was not as harsh as Absolute Liability offences. - Absolute Liability: Similar to Strict Liability, these offences do not require proof of mens rea either. However, the accused has no defences available.
To distinguish between these types the Court examines:
- [t]he overall regulatory pattern adopted by the legislature, the subject matter of the legislation, the importance of the penalty and the precision of the language used will be primary considerations in determining whether the offence falls into the third category.
The Court then noted that the dumping offences were of a public welfare nature and were from a provincial statute, thus, were Strict Liability offences and do not require mens rea.
See also
- Absolute liabilityAbsolute liabilityAbsolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions.To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action, but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind...
- Re B.C. Motor Vehicle ActRe B.C. Motor Vehicle ActReference re Section 94 of the Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486 was a landmark reference submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act...
, (1985), examined absolute liability in light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. - R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc.R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc.R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the distinction between "true crime" and regulatory offences.- Background :...
(1991) - Strict liability (criminal)Strict liability (criminal)In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offence...