Lévis (City) v. Tétreault, (2006) 346 N.R. 331 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 21, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 346 N.R. 331 (SCC);2006 SCC 12;[2006] SCJ No 12 (QL);[2006] 1 SCR 420;346 NR 331;266 DLR (4th) 165;[2006] ACS no 12;36 CR (6th) 215;AZ-50367995;207 CCC (3d) 1;JE 2006-818;31 MVR (5th) 1;68 WCB (2d) 832;[2006] CarswellQue 2911

Lévis v. Tétreault (2006), 346 N.R. 331 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. AP.030

City of Lévis (appellant) v. Louis Tétreault (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

City of Lévis (appellant) v. 2629-4470 Québec Inc. (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada (intervenor)

(30380; 30381; 2006 SCC 12; 2006 CSC 12)

Indexed As: Lévis (City) v. Tétreault

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

April 13, 2006.

Summary:

The City of Lévis Municipal Court acquit­ted the respondents of charges under the Highway Safety Code. The City applied for leave to appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal. The City appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the ap­peals and entered convictions. The offen­ces were strict liability offences, but the respondents had not shown that they exer­cised due diligence. Moreover, although the defence of officially induced error was avail­able in criminal law and had been claimed by the second respondent, it had not been made out.

Trials - Topic 1107

Summary convictions - Defences - Offi­cial­ly induced error of law - In R. v. Jorg­ensen, in reasons that partially concurred with the majority's reasons, Lamer, C.J.C., defined the constituent elements of the de­fence of officially induced error and the conditions under which it would be avail­able - In his view, an accused had to prove (1) that an error of law or of mixed law and fact was made; (2) that the person who committed the act considered the legal con­sequences of his or her actions; (3) that the advice obtained came from an appro­pri­ate official; (4) that the advice was reasonable; (5) that the advice was erron­eous; and (6) that the person relied on the advice in committing the act - The Su­preme Court of Canada held that this ana­lytical framework had become estab­lished -See paragraphs 22 to 27.

Trials - Topic 1107

Summary convictions - Defences - Offi­cially induced error of law - A company was charged with putting a motor vehicle back into operation without having paid registration fees to the Société de l'assur­ance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), con­trary to s. 31.1 of the Highway Safety Code - At trial, the company explained that when its representative registered the vehicle at a SAAQ office, a SAAQ em­ploy­ee told him that he would receive a re­newal notice approximately 60 days before the expiry date, March 31, 2002 - On or about January 18, 2002, SAAQ sent a re­newal notice to the company's civic ad­dress, but did not indicate the apartment number, even though it had this informa­tion on file - As a result, the postal service did not deliver the notice, which it re­­turned to SAAQ on February 14, 2002 - In April 2002, the police stopped the vehicle and observed that its registration had ex­pired due to a failure to pay the fees - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the de­fence of officially induced error had not been met - The issues raised related at most to administrative practices, not to the legal obligation to pay the fees by the pre­scribed date - Thus, two of the funda­men­tal conditions of the defence were missing: the company could not have considered the legal consequences of its conduct on the basis of advice from the official in ques­tion, nor could it have acted in reliance on that opinion, since no infor­mation regard­ing the nature and effects of the relevant legal obligations had been requested or ob­tained - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Trials - Topic 1172

Summary convictions - Strict liability of­fences - Defence of due diligence or error of fact - A company was acquitted of put­ting a motor vehicle back into operation with­out having paid registration fees to the Société de l'assurance automobile du Qué­bec (SAAQ), contrary to s. 31.1 of the High­way Safety Code - At trial, the com­pany explained that when its representative registered the vehicle at a SAAQ office, a SAAQ employee told him that he would re­ceive a renewal notice approximately 60 days before the expiry date, March 31, 2002 - On or about January 18, 2002, SAAQ sent a renewal notice to the compa­ny's civic address, but did not indicate the apartment number, even though it had this in­formation on file - As a result, the postal service did not deliver the notice, which it returned to SAAQ on February 14, 2002 - In April 2002, the police stopped the ve­hicle and observed that its registration had expired due to a failure to pay the fees - The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the acquittal and entered a conviction - The company's lack of action did not sup­port a due diligence defence - See para­graphs 31 to 33.

Trials - Topic 1172

Summary convictions - Strict liability of­fences - Defence of due diligence or er­ror of fact - Tétreault was acquitted of driving a vehicle without a valid driver's licence, contrary to s. 93.1 of the Highway Safety Code - The Supreme Court of Canada over­turned the acquittal and entered a con­viction - The judgments of the courts be­low confused passivity with diligence - The accused did no more than state that he expected to receive a renewal notice for his licence and that he had confused the licence expiry date with the due date for paying the fees required to keep the li­cence valid - He proved no action or at­tempt to obtain information - The concept of diligence was based on the acceptance of a citizen's civic duty to take action to find out what his or her obliga­tions were - Passive ignorance was not a valid defence in criminal law - See para­graphs 29 and 30.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, appld. [para. 6].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie - see R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City).

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Pontes (P.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44; 186 N.R. 81; 62 B.C.A.C. 241; 103 W.A.C. 241; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Molis, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 356; 33 N.R. 411; 55 C.C.C.(2d) 558; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 291, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55; 189 N.R. 1; 87 O.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 510; 43 C.R.(4th) 137; 25 O.R.(3d) 824, consd. [para. 22].

R. v. MacDougall, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 605; 44 N.R. 560; 54 N.S.R.(2d) 562; 112 A.P.R. 562, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Larivière (D.) (2000), 38 C.R.(5th) 130 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Cranbrook Swine Inc. et al. (2003), 170 O.A.C. 346; 64 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Maitland Valley Conservation Authority v. Cranbrook Swine Inc. - see R. v. Cran­brook Swine Inc. et al.

R. v. Cancoil Thermal Corp. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 225; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 295; 11 C.C.E.L. 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Létourneau, Gilles, and Robert, Pierre, Code de procédure pénale du Québec annoté (6th Ed. 2004), pp. 8, 9, 88 [para. 21].

Stuart, Donald, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (4th Ed. 2001), pp. 322 to 331 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Martin Bouffard, for the appellant;

No one appeared for the respondent Louis Tétreault;

Christian Desrosiers and Hélène Maillette, for the respondent 2629-4470 Québec Inc.;

Michel F. Denis and Bernard Mandeville, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Pothier Delisle, Saint-Romuald, Quebec, for the appellant;

St-Pierre, Maillette, Chambly, Quebec, for the respondent 2629-4470 Québec Inc.;

Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on October 21, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. LeBel, J., delivered the following decision, in both official languages, for the court on April 13, 2006.