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

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