R. v. Lambrinoudis, (1978) 8 A.R. 158 (CA)

• Judge: Sinclair, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.
• Case Date: February 06, 1978
• Citations: (1978), 8 A.R. 158 (CA)

R. v. Lambrinoudis (1978), 8 A.R. 158 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Lambrinoudis

Indexed As: R. v. Lambrinoudis

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Sinclair, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.

February 6, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of failing to tag a killed deer contrary to s. 50(3) of the Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 391. The accused placed a tag from a prior hunting season on a deer instead of the tag issued to him for the current season. The accused stated that he had made an honest mistake in placing the wrong tag on the deer. The accused was charged with failing to tag the deer. The trial judge convicted the accused and held that the defence of honest mistake was not available to the accused. The Alberta District Court in a judgment reported 4 A.R. 326 allowed the accused's appeal and directed a new trial. The District Court held that, although the offence was one of strict liability, the defence of honest mistake was available to the accused. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the offence was one of strict liability and that the defence of honest mistake was not available to the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 30

Mens rea or intention - General principles - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that there are two classes of statutes respecting the concept of mens rea: those which require mens rea to be proved and those of strict liability, where mens rea need not be proved - The Court of Appeal stated that a defence of honest mistake was not open for breach of an offence of strict liability - See paragraphs 1 to 3 and 16 to 41.

Fish and Game - Topic 2413

Offences - Hunting - Tagging animals after killing - Intention or mens rea - Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 391, s. 50 - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the offence of failing to tag a killed deer contrary to s. 50 of the Wildlife Act was one of strict liability and mens rea on the part of the accused need not be proved - The Court of Appeal held that a defence of honest mistake was not open to the accused - See paragraphs 1 and 5 to 41.

Fish and Game - Topic 2484

Offences - Hunting - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof on accused - The Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 391, s. 102, placed the onus on the accused of proving that game was "lawfully taken, killed, possessed or kept" - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 102 was inapplicable to a charge of failing to tag a killed deer contrary to s. 50 of the Wildlife Act - See paragraphs 4 and 13 to 15, 35 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Hill v. The Queen (1973), 14 C.C.C. (2d) 505; [1975] 2 S.C.R. 402; 43 O.L.R.(3d) 532, appld. [para. 2].

Bank of New South Wales v. Piper, [1897] A.C. 383, appld. [para. 3].

Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commission, [1968] 2 All E.R. 356, appld. [paras. 3, 26].

R. v. Cardinal (1977), 4 A.R. 1; 3 Alta.L.R.(2d) 108, refd to. [para. 14].

Sherras v. De Rutyen, [1895] 1 Q.B. 918, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 5; 3 N.S.R. 1965-69 1; 12 C.R.N.S. 272; [1970] 5 C.C.C. 193; 12 D.L.R.(3d) 591, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Tolson (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 168, consd. [para. 21].

Thomas v. The King (1937), 59 C.L.R. 279, consd. [para. 21].

Proudman v. Dayman (1941), 67 C.L.R. 536, consd. [para. 22].

Beaver v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 531, consd. [para. 25].

Sweet v. Parsley, [1970] A.C. 132; [1969] 1 All E.R. 347, appld. [paras. 3, 27].

R. v. Hickey (1976), 68 D.L.R.(3d) 88; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 23; 12 O.R.(2d) 578, reversed 70 D.L.R.(2d) 689; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 416; 13 O.R.(2d) 228, appld. [para. 31].

R. v. Oyer (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 479, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Servico Ltd. (1977), 4 A.R. 18; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 388, dist. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 391, sect. 16, sect. 41(1), sect. 102 [para. 13]; sect. 50 [para. 12]; sect. 110(3), sect. 116, sect. 118(17) [para. 39].

Counsel:

J. Robbins, for the Crown;

P.L. Sveen, for the respondent.

This case was heard before SINCLAIR, HADDAD and MORROW, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On February 6, 1978, the judgment of the Appellate Division was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

HADDAD, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 4;

MORROW, J.A. - see paragraphs 5 to 42.

SINCLAIR, J.A., concurred with HADDAD, J.A.