R. v. Pontes

R. v. Pontes

The combined effect of ss.92 and 94(1) of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act constitutes an absolute liability offence because the prohibition is imposed "automatically and without notice" effectively denying any realistic due diligence defence; notwithstanding that classification, there is no s.7 breach because provincial Offence Act provisions (ss.4.1 and 72(1)) remove any risk of imprisonment for absolute liability offences, so no deprivation of life, liberty or security contrary to the principles of fundamental justice arises; accordingly the Crown's appeal was dismissed and no new trial ordered.

Citation
[1995] 3 SCR 44
Parties
Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Patrick Pontes; Intervener: The Attorney General of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal/constitutional Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Absolute Liability, Strict Liability, Due Diligence Defence, Ignorance of Law, Motor Vehicle Offences, Statutory Notice
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter S.7 Absolute Liability Strict Liability Due Diligence Defence Ignorance of Law Motor Vehicle Offences +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant

Patrick Pontes

Respondent

The Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal/constitutional Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss. 94(1) and 92 of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act create an absolute liability offence or strict liability offence
  2. 2 Whether the combined provisions violate s.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  3. 3 Whether the defence of due diligence or mistake of fact is available to an accused charged under s.94(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The combined effect of ss.92 and 94(1) of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act constitutes an absolute liability offence because the prohibition is imposed "automatically and without notice" effectively denying any realistic due diligence defence; notwithstanding that classification, there is no s.7 breach because provincial Offence Act provisions (ss.4.1 and 72(1)) remove any risk of imprisonment for absolute liability offences, so no deprivation of life, liberty or security contrary to the principles of fundamental justice arises; accordingly the Crown's appeal was dismissed and no new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Acquittal at trial upheld; no new trial ordered