R. v. Chapin

R. v. Chapin

Section 14(1) of the Migratory Birds Regulations creates a public welfare offence of strict liability (second category); mens rea is not required but the accused may exculpate herself by proving she took all reasonable care (was not negligent); on the evidence conviction would have been unreasonable and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1979] 2 SCR 121
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent (defendant): Loise Chapin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 1979
Procedural Posture
Criminal (regulatory/public Welfare Offence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Public Welfare Offence, Mistake of Fact Defence, Statutory Interpretation, Penalties and Forfeiture, Hunting Regulations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Regulatory Offences Wildlife Law Strict Liability Public Welfare Offence Mistake of Fact Defence Statutory Interpretation Penalties and Forfeiture +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant (plaintiff)

Loise Chapin

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Criminal (regulatory/public Welfare Offence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.14(1) of the Migratory Birds Regulations is a mens rea offence, a strict liability offence, or an absolute liability offence
  2. 2 Whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available to an accused charged under s.14(1)
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conviction was reasonable on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14(1) of the Migratory Birds Regulations creates a public welfare offence of strict liability (second category); mens rea is not required but the accused may exculpate herself by proving she took all reasonable care (was not negligent); on the evidence conviction would have been unreasonable and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondent on a solicitor and client basis pursuant to the terms under which leave to appeal was granted