Could criminal charges (as opposed to regulatory charges) be successful in Canada against executives of a company that created, say, a huge oil spill off the coast of Newfoundland?
Obviously the issue is fact dependant but such a case would be very difficult for the Crown to prove.
In Canada for a criminal prosecution the Crown would have to show the executive either committed the offence directly or was a party to the offence.
While committing the offence directly is possible -- look at Drabinsky -- it is unlikely, especially in the environmental context. The Crown would have to show not that the executive was negligent and failed to fulfil their duty but rather that the executive actually, say, directed that safety steps not be taken.
Similarly, to be a party to an offence it isn't enough to show negligence -- the Crown would have to show knowledge of the offence and some step taken to further or enable the offence.
Put in a nutshell, negligence, sloppiness and incompetence isn't enough in Canada to found a criminal conviction -- and so if the event of a BP like spill here the most likely action is regulatory prosecution. Criminal charges would likely fail.
4 comments:
Governments should have to shoulder some of the blame. They set the standards and should be responsible for their adherence.
An example is tobacco. The product kills people but it was the government that allowed the tobacco to be sold to consumers in the first place. They took a "healthy" profit to boot.
Poor Morton, the professor who teaches "progressive" law.
Which of course isn't law at all,but special interest politics which has turned a respectable justice system into a grotesque one.
Shame on you Mr Morton.
You Neo-Marxist.
Not so much neo as Groucho...
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
Groucho Marx
Post a Comment