R. V. Saulte Ste Case Study

The case of R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie is an interesting case, where the city got into an agreement with a private corporation, for the disposal of waste that was within the city. The city was unable to maintain their operation of waste disposal. The private company started piling waste into the creek, to which they were eventually charged, as well as the city. This essay will be organized by answering the questions in chronological order; to which in the first question, I will be looking heavily into the case of R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie and Roach. It will incorporate the regulatory offences and the mental blameworthiness and how strict liability acts as a balance between the two. It will also include the defence of due diligence. Which would bring in the next question of absolute liability offences. I will be focusing on several other cases presented in class, R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie and Roach to further explain the question.
Strict liability strikes a good balance between the regulatory offences and the principle that the morally blameworthy may be punished by having to prove that the prohibited act was done beyond a reasonable doubt. Negligence is presumed, unless the defence establishes a defence of

The Supreme Court “invalidated an absolute liability offence, under the section seven of the Charter. It was on the basis that it “could send a person to jail for driving with a suspended licence when that person is not have subjective fault (that is she did not know or was not aware of the risk that her licence was suspended). It went on to describe that “absolute liability offences offend the principle of fundamental justice by punishing the morally innocent, they will not violate section 7 of the Charter, unless they threaten the accused’s right to life, liberty and security of the person. The courts have upheld absolute liability offences that could not result in