R v. Sault Ste. Marie (City of) Case Brief

This document is a case brief on R v. Sault Ste. Marie (City of), a Supreme Court of Canada case that discusses the categorization of offences under Canadian criminal law. The case involves the seeping of waste material into a stream and raises questions about preventive measures and the classification of the offence. The court categorizes the offence under strict liability and defines the three types of offences in Canadian criminal law: true crimes, strict liability offences, and absolute liability offences.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
R v. Sault Ste. Marie (City of) Case Brief
Style: Her Majesty the Queen v. City of Sault Ste. Marie [1978] 2 SCR 1299
Supreme Court of Canada
Procedural history: the Court Of Appeal For Ontario had questioned about the presence of
mens rea, and stated that in absence of it the defendant would be acquitted.
While, the Supreme Court of Canada defined the three types of offence existing in the
Canadian criminal law. The court further defined 'public welfare' offences for its justification.
Issue: a) why did the state fail to take preventive measures pertaining to the seeping of waste
material into the stream?
b) Whether the offence of the city e is to be classified as absolute liability or as strict
liability.
Holding: The Supreme Court of Canada categorised it under strict liability offences and
noted that it do not require the presence of mens rea to be so categorised. Chief Justice
Dickson held a judgment where the court categorised the offence into three types:
A) True Crimes: True Crimes are those offences which require the presence of mens rea
or the element of guilty mind to commit the crime. This type of offences involves the
use of certain words like intentional, willful or knowing.
B) Strict Liability: Strict Liability offences are those offences which do not require the
presence of mens rea. It is held that the accused have affected certain wrongful
activity that has caused harm upon some other person or thing. In this type of liability
the accused is taken for a reasonable man and who has caused the harm, unknowingly
and has defence of mistake of fact or otherwise known as the defence of due
diligence. The court is of the opinion that the defence of due diligence is only

2BUSINESS LAW
available to an accused who can prove his innocence for his mistake of facts, or that
the accused took every reasonable steps for avoiding the wrongful activity. These
offences r are of low standard in comparison to true crimes as well as absolute
liability of offences. Unlike true crimes, strict liability of offences are open market to
an accused even when there is no guilty mind or mens rea present. In addition, unlike
true crimes where the accused is held to be innocent until proved, the accused in case
of strict liability offences are presumed to have indulged in some kind of negligent for
wrongful act, whatsoever.
C) Absolute Liability: The Absolute Liability offences are quite similar to strict
liability offences as these do not require the presence of mens rea as well. However
Absolute Liability Offences lack the presence of defence of due diligence that the
accused can refer to. It is of absolute nature and therefore exercised in in absolute and
extreme cases which are extremely harsh.
Rules:
 True Crimes are those offences which require the presence of mens rea or the element
of guilty mind to commit the crime.
 Strict Liability offences are those offences which do not require the presence of mens
rea. In this type of liability the accused is taken for a reasonable man and who has
caused the harm, unknowingly and has defence of mistake of fact or otherwise known
as the defence of due diligence.
 Absolute Liability Offences lack the presence of defence of due diligence that the
accused can refer to

3BUSINESS LAW
Reasoning: The three types of offences are so categorised to divide and segregate different
forms of breach of liability, thereby facilitating the judiciary to implement sanctions more
judiciously.
Facts:
 The city of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario had employed Cherokee Disposal 2 to dispose of
the waste gather around the city and dump it in the newly built dump yard 20 feet
away from a stream. Often the waste from the dump yard seeped into the stream,
thereby contaminating the water and the public waterway causing severe water
pollution.
 Charges were brought against the city e where the court of appeal held that the
absence of mens rea amounts to the acquittal of the defendant. The Supreme Court
categorised it under the strict liability of offences