Canadian Criminal Law/Defences/Officially Induced Error
General Principles edit
A valid excuse for violating the law is on the basis of an officially induced error of law. [1] The defence arises where the accused is given advice in error that the accused relies upon in doing the criminal act.
Officially induced error is available as a defence to prevent morally blameless individuals, who believe they are acting in a lawful manner, from being convicted.[2]
The elements that must be proven are:
- The error was one of law or mixed law and fact
- The accused considered the legal consequences of their actions
- The advice obtained came from an appropriate official
- The advice was reasonable in the circumstances
- The advice obtained must be erroneous
- The accused must demonstrate reliance on the official advice
Each element must be proven on a balance of probabilities by the accused.[3]
This is an exception to the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The defence arises in part out of the overly complex nature of regulation. [4]
The purpose of the defence is to prevent injustices where the ““state approving conduct with one hand and seeking to bring criminal sanction for that conduct with the other”[5]
A successful application will result in a stay of proceedings.[6]
- ↑ R v Jorgensen at 28 to 37
- ↑
R. v. Jorgensen 1995 CanLII 85 (S.C.C.), (1995), 4 S.C.R. 55
R. v. Halloran, 2010 ONSC 4321
- ↑ R v Jorgensen
- ↑ R. v. Jorgensen, 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55 at para. 25
Lévis (City) v. Tétreault; Lévis (City) v. 2629-4470 Québec inc., 2006 SCC 12 (CanLII), 2006 SCC 12 at 24 - ↑ R v Jorgensen at para 30
- ↑ R v Jorgensen