R v Sault Ste Marie (City of)

Sault Ste Marie is the foundational classification of criminal and regulatory offences in Canadian law. Dickson J identified three categories: true crimes (full mens rea required); strict liability (Crown proves actus reus, accused proves due diligence on a balance of probabilities); and absolute liability (no defence — later constrained by BC Motor Vehicle Reference for imprisonable offences).

The City was charged with discharging a deleterious substance under the Ontario Water Resources Act. The mens rea required was unclear from the statute.

How are regulatory offences classified? What fault elements apply?

Three-category framework articulated. New trial.

Three categories: (1) true crimes — full mens rea, prosecution proves intent, knowledge, or recklessness; (2) strict liability — Crown proves actus reus; defence of due diligence on balance of probabilities; (3) absolute liability — no defence available. The default for regulatory offences is strict liability unless the language clearly indicates otherwise.

Dickson J held that the strict-liability category resolves the tension between the need for regulatory enforcement and the moral premise that liability should attach to fault. The reverse onus is constitutionally tolerable for regulatory offences in part because the penalties are typically modest.

Foundational regulatory-offences case. The default-strict-liability rule shapes pollution, occupational-health, securities, and competition prosecutions. Reference re BC Motor Vehicle Act (1985) constrains absolute liability where imprisonment is at stake.

R v Sault Ste Marie (City of), [1978] 2 SCR 1299, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC).

Laskin CJ, Martland J, Ritchie J, Spence J, Pigeon J, Dickson J, Beetz J