R. v. 3237211 Nova Scotia Ltd.

R. v. 3237211 Nova Scotia Ltd.

The accused failed to prove due diligence because, at the time of the offence, it lacked documented, verifiable systems and supervision (no written policy, no logs, limited certified staff, no documented monitoring or disciplinary regime) and relied solely on uncorroborated owner testimony; therefore it did not exercise all reasonable care to prevent the sale to a minor.

Citation
2012 NSPC 80
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: 3237211 Nova Scotia Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Offence (tobacco Access Act) / Trial Decision on Due Diligence Defence
Outcome
Due diligence defence dismissed; accused did not exercise all reasonable care under s.5(1) of the Tobacco Access Act.
Legal Topics
Due Diligence Defence, Strict Liability, Employer Liability, Compliance and Enforcement
Source Language
English
Regulatory Offences Criminal Law Tobacco Control Due Diligence Defence Strict Liability Employer Liability Compliance and Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

3237211 Nova Scotia Limited

Accused

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Offence (tobacco Access Act) / Trial Decision on Due Diligence Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused established the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether the accused exercised all reasonable care by establishing a proper system to prevent the offence
  3. 3 Whether the accused took reasonable steps to ensure effective operation and supervision of the system

Ratio Decidendi

The accused failed to prove due diligence because, at the time of the offence, it lacked documented, verifiable systems and supervision (no written policy, no logs, limited certified staff, no documented monitoring or disciplinary regime) and relied solely on uncorroborated owner testimony; therefore it did not exercise all reasonable care to prevent the sale to a minor.

Court Disposition

Due diligence defence dismissed; accused did not exercise all reasonable care under s.5(1) of the Tobacco Access Act.

Orders

  • Due diligence defence not established; finding that the sale occurred and the accused failed to prove the defence under s.5(1) of the Tobacco Access Act.