R. v. Burt, (1985) 40 Sask.R. 214 (QB)

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Judge: Gerein, J.
• Citation: (1985), 40 Sask.R. 214 (QB)
• Date: 19 June 1985

R. v. Burt (1985), 40 Sask.R. 214 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Burt

(No. 382)

Indexed As: R. v. Burt

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Kerrobert

Gerein, J.

June 19, 1985.

Summary:

The accused motor vehicle owner was charged with allowing someone to operate his motor vehicle and cause excessive noise in its operation, contrary to ss. 141 and 253 of the Vehicles Act. The trial judge acquitted the accused, holding that s. 253 violated the accused's right not to be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, as guaranteed under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. The court held that the absence of actus reus rendered s. 253 invalid as a violation of s. 7.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - Section 253 of the Vehicles Act made a motor vehicle owner liable for violations of the Act by another person, unless he proved that neither he nor anyone else was driving with his express or implied consent - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the ability to convict without actus reus rendered s. 253 invalid as a violation of the accused's right not to be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 2 to 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamental justice - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "principles of fundamental justice" were not restricted to matters of procedure, but also related to the content of legislation - The court also stated that there was no comprehensive or exhaustive definition of "fundamental justice", but that the court should consider the historical development of the rights protected at common law, legislative tradition and the need to put society's interests ahead of the rights of the individual - See paragraphs 11 to 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 162

Criminal conduct - Elements of - Actus reus - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to hold a person liable for an offence in the absence of any actus reus - See paragraphs 4 to 18.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 4124

Offences - Liability of owners - For offence of driver - Section 253 of the Vehicles Act made a motor vehicle owner liable for violations of the Act by another person, unless he proved that neither he nor anyone else was driving with his express or implied consent - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the ability to convict without actus reus rendered s. 253 invalid as a violation of the accused's right not to be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 2 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Grant (1957), 26 W.W.R.(N.S.) 467, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Davlyn Corporation Limited (1969), 70 W.W.R.(N.S.) 691, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Budget Car Rentals (Toronto) Limited (1981), 20 C.R.(3d) 66, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Watch (1984), 10 C.C.C.(3d) 521, disagreed with [para. 5].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Ferlatte (1984), 23 M.V.R. 253, disagreed with [para. 5].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 243 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. (1985), 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 9].

R.L. Crain Inc. et al. v. Couture and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al. (1984), 30 Sask.R. 191; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 478, appld. [para. 10].

Fowler v. Padget (1798), 101 E.R. 1103, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Huggins (1730), 92 E.R. 518, refd to. [para. 14].

Upholsterers International Union of North America, Local 1 v. Hankin and Struck Furniture Ltd. (1964), 49 W.W.R.(N.S.) 33, refd to. [para. 14].

Baker v. Levinson, [1950] 2 All E.R. 825, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Piggly Wiggly Canadian Ltd., [1933] 2 W.W.R. 475, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Kiesvel Brewing Co., [1930] 1 W.W.R. 238, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Vehicles Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. V-3, sect. 253 [para. 2].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Russell on Crime (12th Ed.), vol. 1, pp. 22, 26 [para. 13].

Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law (4th Ed.), p. 31 [para. 13].

Counsel:

W.H. Roe, for the appellant (Crown);

B.L. Gares, for the respondent (accused).

This appeal was heard before Gerein, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Kerrobert, who delivered the following judgment, on June 19, 1985.