|
POA - Absolute Liability. Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference
In Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a finding of civil contempt, here in relation to a railway labour arbitration award.
Here the court comments on the Charter and absolute liability:[31] I note, parenthetically, that absolute liability offences cannot include imprisonment as a potential consequence, as this would offend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, 1985 CanLII 81 (SCC) at 515). Therefore, as noted by the Federal Court in Canadian Private Copying Collective v. Fuzion Technology Corp., 2009 FC 800, 349 F.T.R. 303 [Fuzion Technology], civil contempt under the Federal Courts Rules, when brought against individuals, cannot constitutionally create an absolute liability offence (at para. 57). This reasoning applies to the offence at large, but not to a corporate defendant, since a corporation cannot be imprisoned; see, e.g., Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) at 1002. The directing minds, can, however. . Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference
In Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from a finding of civil contempt, here in relation to a railway labour arbitration award.
Here the court distinguishes mens rea, and strict and abolute liability:Strict liability, absolute liability, and mens rea offences
[28] The point of departure for the analysis begins with an understanding of the differences between mens rea offences (or "“true criminal offences”"), strict liability offences, and absolute liability offences. The guiding authority on this remains: R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC) at 1325-1326 [Sault Ste. Marie]:(i) true criminal offences, "“in which mens rea, consisting of some positive state of mind such as intent, knowledge, or recklessness, must be proved by the prosecution”";
(ii) strict liability offences, "“in which there is no necessity for the prosecution to prove the existence of mens rea; the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open to the accused to avoid liability by proving that he took all reasonable care”";
(iii) absolute liability offences, in which "“it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault”".
|
