« Erreur provoquée officiellement » : différence entre les versions

De Le carnet de droit pénal
Modification suivante →
VisuelWikicode
Page créée avec « {{en|Officially_Induced_Error}} »
 
Aucun résumé des modifications
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
{{en|Officially_Induced_Error}}
{{en|Officially_Induced_Error}}
{{Currency2|January|2015}}
{{LevelOne}}
{{HeaderDefences}}
==General Principles==
A valid excuse for violating the law is on the basis of an officially induced error of law.  <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jorgensen|1frg5|1995 CanLII 85 (SCC)|[1995] 4 SCR 55}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atsL|1frg5|28| to 37}}</ref>
The defence arises where the accused is given advice in error that the accused relies upon in doing the criminal act.
An officially induced error is available as a defence to prevent morally blameless individuals, who believe they are acting in a lawful manner, from being convicted.<ref>
{{ibid1|Jorgensen}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Halloran|2bz41|2010 ONSC 4321 (CanLII)|99 MVR (5th) 257}}{{perONSC|Sproat J}}<br>
</ref>
This is an exception to the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse.<ref>
{{supra1|Jorgensen}}</ref>
This defence cannot be invoked for bad advice from court-house duty counsel as legal aid is not part of the government.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Pea|g1hzg|2008 CanLII 89824 (ON CA)|79 WCB (2d) 262}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}}
</ref>
; Purpose
The purpose of the defence is to prevent injustices where the “state approving conduct with one hand and seeking to bring criminal sanction for that conduct with the other”<ref>
{{supra1|Jorgensen}}{{atL|1frg5|30}}</ref>
The defence arises in part out of the overly complex nature of regulation. <ref>
{{supra1|Jorgensen}}{{atL|1frg5|25}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Lévis (City) v Tétreault; Lévis (City) v 2629-4470 Québec inc.|1n0zk|2006 SCC 12 (CanLII)|[2006] 1 SCR 420}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} at 24</ref>
; Remedy
A successful application will result in a stay of proceedings.<ref>
{{supra1|Jorgensen}}</ref>
; Elements
The elements that must be proven are:<ref> {{supra1|Jorgensen}}{{atsL|1frg5|28| to 32}}<br>
</ref>
#The error was one of law or mixed law and fact
#The accused considered the legal consequences of her actions
#The advice obtained came from an appropriate official
#The advice was reasonable in the circumstances
#The advice obtained must be erroneous
#The accused must demonstrate reliance on the official advice
Each element must be proven on a balance of probabilities by the accused.<ref>
{{supra1|Jorgensen}}</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
==Case Digests==
* [[Defences (Cases)]]
==See Also==
* [[Defences]]

Version du 19 juin 2024 à 22:12

Ang
Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2015. (Rev. # 2026)
n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.

General Principles

A valid excuse for violating the law is on the basis of an officially induced error of law. [1] The defence arises where the accused is given advice in error that the accused relies upon in doing the criminal act.

An officially induced error is available as a defence to prevent morally blameless individuals, who believe they are acting in a lawful manner, from being convicted.[2]

This is an exception to the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse.[3]

This defence cannot be invoked for bad advice from court-house duty counsel as legal aid is not part of the government.[4]

Purpose

The purpose of the defence is to prevent injustices where the “state approving conduct with one hand and seeking to bring criminal sanction for that conduct with the other”[5]

The defence arises in part out of the overly complex nature of regulation. [6]

Remedy

A successful application will result in a stay of proceedings.[7]

Elements

The elements that must be proven are:[8]

  1. The error was one of law or mixed law and fact
  2. The accused considered the legal consequences of her actions
  3. The advice obtained came from an appropriate official
  4. The advice was reasonable in the circumstances
  5. The advice obtained must be erroneous
  6. The accused must demonstrate reliance on the official advice

Each element must be proven on a balance of probabilities by the accused.[9]

  1. ↑ R c Jorgensen, 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 55, par Lamer CJ, aux paras 28 to 37
  2. ↑ , ibid.
    R c Halloran, 2010 ONSC 4321 (CanLII), 99 MVR (5th) 257, par Sproat J
  3. ↑ Jorgensen, supra
  4. ↑ R c Pea, 2008 CanLII 89824 (ON CA), 79 WCB (2d) 262, par Gillese JA
  5. ↑ Jorgensen, supra, au para 30
  6. ↑ Jorgensen, supra, au para 25
    Lévis (City) v Tétreault; Lévis (City) v 2629-4470 Québec inc., 2006 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2006] 1 SCR 420, par LeBel J at 24
  7. ↑ Jorgensen, supra
  8. ↑ Jorgensen, supra, aux paras 28 to 32
  9. ↑ Jorgensen, supra

Case Digests

See Also

Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Erreur_provoquée_officiellement&oldid=2026 »