R. v. Chapin, (1979) 26 N.R. 289 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 26 N.R. 289 (SCC);26 NR 289;[1979] SCJ No 35 (QL);7 CR (3d) 225;8 CELR 151;[1979] 2 SCR 121;95 DLR (3d) 13;1979 CanLII 33 (SCC);45 CCC (2d) 333

R. v. Chapin (1979), 26 N.R. 289 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Chapin

Indexed As: R. v. Chapin

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.

March 20, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused woman of hunting ducks within one quarter mile of bait contrary to s. 14 of the Migratory Birds Regulations. The accused hunted ducks from a blind near which was a small pile of grain, but the accused did not know that the grain was present. The accused was acquitted by a justice of the peace but convicted on appeal by the Ontario County Court on the ground that the offence was one of absolute liability not requiring proof of mens rea. On the appeal of the accused the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the offence was one of strict liability to which the defence of reasonable care was applicable.

Criminal Law - Topic 30

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Whether offence one of mens rea or strict liability - The accused woman was charged with hunting ducks within one quarter mile of bait contrary to s. 14 of the Migratory Birds Regulations - The accused did not know that she was hunting near bait - The Supreme Court of Canada acquitted the accused and held that the offence was one of strict liability, to which the defence of reasonable care was applicable - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the three categories of offences: offences requiring mens rea, offences of absolute liability and offences of strict liability - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 7634

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - New trials - Power to dispose of charge without ordering new trial - The accused woman was charged with hunting ducks within one quarter mile of bait contrary to s. 14 of the Migratory Birds Regulations - The accused did not know that she was hunting near bait - The accused was convicted - On appeal the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the accused's favour that the offence was one of strict liability to which the defence of reasonable care was applicable - Instead of ordering a new trial, the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted the accused without ordering a new trial, where on the evidence it would have been unreasonable to convict the accused - See paragraphs 26 to 29.

Fish and Game - Topic 1700

Offences - Mens rea or intention - Offences of strict liability - The accused woman was charged with hunting ducks within one quarter mile of bait contrary to s. 14 of the Migratory Birds Regulation - The accused did not know that she was hunting near bait - The Supreme Court of Canada acquitted the accused and held that the offence was one of strict liability, to which the defence of reasonable care was applicable - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the three categories of offences: offences requiring mens rea, offences of absolute liability and offences of strict liability - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hickey (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 578, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978), 21 N.R. 295; 3 C.R.(3d) appld. [para. 10].

Sherras v. De Rutzen, [1895] 1 Q.B. 918, appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 5; 3 N.S.R. 1965-69 1, dist. [para. 22].

R. v. Hickey (1977), 13 O.R.(2d) 228, dist. [para. 22].

Thibodeau v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 646, folld. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Migratory Birds Convention Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. M-12, sect. 2 [para. 14]; sect. 4(1) [para. 16]; sect. 10 [para. 13]; sect. 12(1) [para. 5].

Migratory Birds Regulations, SOR/71-736, sect. 14 [para. 4].

Counsel:

J. Douglas Ewart, for the appellant;

John Brown, Q.C., for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 7 and 8, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 20, 1979, DICKSON, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: