Absolute versus Strict liability

Moderators: Radar Identified, Reflections, admin, hwybear, Decatur, bend

jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

Absolute versus Strict liability

by: jsherk on
Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:10 pm

Is there a list somewhere that shows which HTA charges are absolute and which are strict liability?

Thanks
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

by: ynotp on
Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:01 am

For those who don't know both Absolute Liability and Strict Liability do not require "mens rea" (intent) to be proven in order to support a conviction but with Strict Liability offences you may use the defense due diligence.

If an HTA offence is regarded as one or the other depends largely on precedents that take into account the wording of the legislation, and potential penalties.

You would be free to argue in court how the offence is to be treated, but in the absence of a compelling argument the established precedent will the one the JP will use. Using a due diligence defense is risky because it means you have to admit in court what you are accused of and hope the JP finds you credible enough to garner reasonable doubt.

Every day offences that courts have repeatedly ruled fall into Absolute liability are Speeding (under 50) and Fail to Stop.

Strict Liability offences include Careless Driving, Stunt Driving, Drive without insurance, and Drive under suspension.










jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:11 pm

Just a thought... What about if I stop a red light, my coffee gets knocked over onto the passenger side floor, I take my seat belt off to reach over and pick it up (while the vehicle is still stopped at the light), then put my seat belt back on before proceeding.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

by: Stanton on
Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:49 pm

jsherk wrote:Just a thought... What about if I stop a red light, my coffee gets knocked over onto the passenger side floor, I take my seat belt off to reach over and pick it up (while the vehicle is still stopped at the light), then put my seat belt back on before proceeding.
There's some case law (York Regional Municipality v. Tassone) from the Court of Appeal that deals with that scenario. The Court stated: "Accidents occur even when vehicles are stopped at traffic lights. In our view, s. 106(3) must be interpreted as requiring the driver to wear a seat belt continuously from the time he or she puts the vehicle in motion on the highway to the time the driver leaves the highway, parks the vehicle in a position in which the vehicle can be left unattended, or gets out of the vehicle."

To the best of my knowledge that decision still stands.


screeech
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:20 am

by: screeech on
Tue Sep 29, 2015 12:59 pm

There is no list to say what offences are strict or absolute liability. If there is a specific offence you need to know about, do research in case law on that particular charge. There is often a determination made in case law.




Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests