Regulatory Offences (Sentencing): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "{{Currency\|([A-Za-z]+) ([0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])}}" to "{{Currency2|$1|$2}}" Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Currency2|January|2016}} | ||
{{LevelZero}} | {{LevelZero}} | ||
{{HeaderSentencing}} | {{HeaderSentencing}} | ||
Revision as of 13:47, 13 May 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2016. (Rev. # 92876) |
General Principles
Sentencing of corporate offenders for regulatory offences should consider:
- the conduct, circumstances and consequences of the offence,
- the terms and aims of the relevant enactment or regulation, considered in the larger context of comparable regulation and legitimate corporate functioning in the relevant areas, and
- the participation, character and attitude of the corporation offender, considered in the larger context of corporations engaged in relevant industrial or business activity,
all with a view of identifying the aggravating and mitigating factors. [1]
For the most part, the enforcement of the violated regulations can be achieved by the imposition of fines.[2]
The primary objective of the fine is deterrence.[3]
The amount of a fine will be determined based on factors including:[4]
- the size of the company involved,
- the scope of the economic activity in issue,
- the extent of actual and potential harm to the public,
- the maximum penalty prescribed by the statute,
- the need to enforce regulatory standards by deterrence.
- ↑
R v General Scrap Iron & Metals Ltd., 2003 ABQB 22 (CanLII), 5 WWR 99, per Watson J, at para 35
- ↑ R v Cotton Felts Ltd., 1982 CanLII 3695 (ON CA), 2 CCC (3d) 287, per Blair JA, at pp. 294-295 ("To a very large extent the enforcement of [regulatory] statutes is achieved by fines imposed on offending corporations.")
- ↑
see discussion R v Canadian Consoli, 2013 ABPC 120 (CanLII), 560 AR 382, per Walter J, at para 10
- ↑ Cotton Felts Ltd., supra