Officially Induced Error: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
m Text replacement - "\{\{Fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "Fr:$1"
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Currency|January 2015}}
[[Fr:Erreur_provoquée_officiellement]]
{{Currency2|January|2015}}
{{LevelOne}}
{{LevelOne}}
{{HeaderDefences}}
{{HeaderDefences}}

Latest revision as of 08:08, 23 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2015. (Rev. # 95802)

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]

  1. The error was one of law or mixed law and fact
  2. The accused considered the legal consequences of her actions
  3. The advice obtained came from an appropriate official
  4. The advice was reasonable in the circumstances
  5. The advice obtained must be erroneous
  6. The accused must demonstrate reliance on the official advice

Each element must be proven on a balance of probabilities by the accused.[9]

  1. R v Jorgensen, 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 55, per Lamer CJ, at paras 28 to 37
  2. Jorgensen, ibid.
    R v Halloran, 2010 ONSC 4321 (CanLII), 99 MVR (5th) 257, per Sproat J
  3. Jorgensen, supra
  4. R v Pea, 2008 CanLII 89824 (ON CA), 79 WCB (2d) 262, per Gillese JA
  5. Jorgensen, supra, at para 30
  6. 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
  7. Jorgensen, supra
  8. Jorgensen, supra, at paras 28 to 32
  9. Jorgensen, supra

Case Digests

See Also