We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close
Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

OHSA offences aren’t necessarily strict liability

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 @ 8:33 AM | By Bruce McMeekin

Since the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie decision, Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and other regulatory offences have been presumed to be strict liability. On proof of the wrongful act, the defendant must disprove its negligence by establishing it exercised reasonable care.

There is an exception. If the language of the provision includes some reference to a positive state of mind or subjective mens rea being required, such as “knowingly,” the reverse onus is inoperative, meaning the Crown must prove both mens rea along with the...