Officially Induced Error: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "\{\{Fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "Fr:$1" |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Fr:Erreur_provoquée_officiellement]] | |||
{{Currency2|January|2015}} | |||
{{LevelOne}} | {{LevelOne}} | ||
{{HeaderDefences}} | {{HeaderDefences}} | ||
| Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
The defence arises in part out of the overly complex nature of regulation. <ref> | The defence arises in part out of the overly complex nature of regulation. <ref> | ||
{{supra1|Jorgensen}}{{atL|1frg5|25}}<br> | {{supra1|Jorgensen}}{{atL|1frg5|25}}<br> | ||
{{ | {{CanLIIRPC|Lévis (City) v Tétreault; Lévis (City) v 2629-4470 Québec inc.|1n0zk|2006 SCC 12 (CanLII)|[2006] 1 SCR 420}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} at 24</ref> | ||
; Remedy | ; Remedy | ||
Latest revision as of 08:08, 23 July 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2015. (Rev. # 95802) |
- < Criminal Law
- < Defences
General Principles
A valid excuse for violating the law is on the basis of an officially induced error of law. [1] The defence arises where the accused is given advice in error that the accused relies upon in doing the criminal act.
An officially induced error is available as a defence to prevent morally blameless individuals, who believe they are acting in a lawful manner, from being convicted.[2]
This is an exception to the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse.[3]
This defence cannot be invoked for bad advice from court-house duty counsel as legal aid is not part of the government.[4]
- Purpose
The purpose of the defence is to prevent injustices where the “state approving conduct with one hand and seeking to bring criminal sanction for that conduct with the other”[5]
The defence arises in part out of the overly complex nature of regulation. [6]
- Remedy
A successful application will result in a stay of proceedings.[7]
- Elements
The elements that must be proven are:[8]
- The error was one of law or mixed law and fact
- The accused considered the legal consequences of her actions
- The advice obtained came from an appropriate official
- The advice was reasonable in the circumstances
- The advice obtained must be erroneous
- The accused must demonstrate reliance on the official advice
Each element must be proven on a balance of probabilities by the accused.[9]
- ↑ R v Jorgensen, 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 55, per Lamer CJ, at paras 28 to 37
- ↑
Jorgensen, ibid.
R v Halloran, 2010 ONSC 4321 (CanLII), 99 MVR (5th) 257, per Sproat J
- ↑ Jorgensen, supra
- ↑ R v Pea, 2008 CanLII 89824 (ON CA), 79 WCB (2d) 262, per Gillese JA
- ↑ Jorgensen, supra, at para 30
- ↑
Jorgensen, supra, at para 25
Lévis (City) v Tétreault; Lévis (City) v 2629-4470 Québec inc., 2006 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2006] 1 SCR 420, per LeBel J at 24 - ↑ Jorgensen, supra
- ↑ Jorgensen, supra, at paras 28 to 32
- ↑ Jorgensen, supra