R. v. Merkle, (1979) 19 A.R. 353 (CA)

• Judge: Clement, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 22, 1979
• Citations: (1979), 19 A.R. 353 (CA)

R. v. Merkle (1979), 19 A.R. 353 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Merkle

Indexed As: R. v. Merkle

Alberta Court of Appeal

Clement, Haddad and Morrow, JJ.A.

October 22, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of failing to file an income tax return after demand, contrary to the Income Tax Act. The trial court held that the offence charged was not one of absolute liability but was an offence of strick liability where a defence of due diligence was available to the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused on the basis that he exercised due diligence. The Crown appealed by way of stated case and posed the question of whether the offence charged was an offence of strict liability.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirmed the acquittal of the accused and held that the offence charged was an offence of strict liability.

Income Tax - Topic 9358

Enforcement - Offences - Mens rea or intention, offences of strict liability - A taxpayer was charged with failing to file a tax return after demand, contrary to s. 150(2) of the Income Tax Act - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 150(2) created an offence of strict liability and was not an offence of absolute liability.

Criminal Law - Topic 35

Mens rea or intention - Presumption of requirement of mens rea - The Alberta Court of Appeal referred to the presumption that mens rea is an essential element in every offence - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

Sherras v. De Rutzen, [1895] 1 Q.B. 918, refd to. [para. 9].

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, refd to. [para. 10].

Thomas v. R., 59 C.L.R. 279; [1938] A.L.R. 37; 11 A.L.J. 343; [1938] U.L.R. 32, refd to. [para. 10].

Proudman v. Doyman, [1944] A.L.R. 64; 67 C.L.R. 536; 15 A.L.J. 192, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Tolson (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 168, refd to. [para. 10].

Warner v. Metro. Police Commn., [1969] 2 A.C. 256; [1968] 2 All E.R. 356; 52 Cr. App. R. 373, refd to. [para. 10].

Beaver v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 531; 26 C.R. 193; 118 C.C.C. 129, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Hickey (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 578; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 23; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 88, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Cardinal (1977), 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 108; 36 C.C.C.(2d) 369; 4 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Servico Ltd. (1977), 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 388; 4 A.R. 18, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Lambrinoudis (1978), 5 Alta. L.R.(2d) 180; 8 A.R. 158, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978), 3 C.R. (3d) 30; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 21 N.R. 295, folld. [para. 14].

R. v. Chapin (1979), 26 N.R. 289; 7 C.R.(3d) 225, folld. [para. 14].

Alcide Vaillant v. M.N.R., 69 D.T.C. 60, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Saltron Television Ltd. (1970), 70 D.T.C. 6116, refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Income Tax Act, S.A. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 150(2) [para. 18]; sect. 238(1) [para. 17].

Counsel:

I.C. Hutton, for the Crown;

No one contra.

This appeal was heard by CLEMENT, HADDAD and MORROW, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal was delivered by MORROW, J.A., at Edmonton, Alberta, on October 22, 1979.