R. v. Tyrell, 2014 ONCA 617:
[30] Proof of knowledge, or of its close cousin, wilful blindness, demands a subjective inquiry. The question is "what did the accused know" and not "what ought he to have known": see R. v. Beaver, [1957] S.C.R. 531, at pp. 538, 541-42. Generally speaking, the doctrine of constructive or imputed knowledge based on what a person "ought to have known" has no place in the criminal law: R. v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Ltd. (1974), 18 C.C.C. (2d) 23 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 30:
No comments:
Post a Comment