Vauclair, Hamilton, Cournoyer

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing an appeal from a conviction. Dismissed.

The appellant had been hunting on land belonging to a friend since the early 2000s. His friend had told him that the land was in the western part of hunting Area 5 and that it was possible to take part in a draw to kill two deer in this area. In November 2017, after killing two white-tailed deer, the appellant found out that the land in question was in fact in the eastern part of hunting Area 5 and that the killing of two deer was prohibited. The appellant was therefore convicted of unlawfully hunting big game in the eastern part of hunting Area 5 during a prohibited period.

The appellant does not deny having committed the acts underlying the offence but submits that he was induced by his friend to make a reasonable mistake of fact regarding the location of his hunting site. He argues that he wrongly believed that he was hunting in the western part of Area 5.

The offence charged against the appellant under sections 56 and 167 of the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife (CQLR, c. C-61.1), hunting in a prohibited hunting area, is a strict liability offence. Under the strict liability regime, hunters are presumed to be aware of and to accept the relevant terms of this regulated activity. They are aware that they will be held responsible for any violation of these terms. Like any defendant, the appellant had to establish his reasonable diligence in obtaining the relevant facts regarding the licence obtained and in avoiding the commission of the offence.

In this case, the appellant did not make a mistake of fact, as he was not wrong about the facts. He was aware that he was hunting on his friend’s land, and he made no error regarding his geographical location. Rather, the error raised by the appellant is an error of law. He was aware that a hunting licence was required to kill white-tailed deer as, in principle, hunting is a prohibited activity, and he in fact had such a licence. The appellant was mistaken about the rules applicable to the hunting site he was at and about the scope of his legal authorization to hunt. A mere consultation of the Regulation respecting hunting (CQLR, c. C-61.1, r. 12) and of the map in its schedules would have been sufficient to understand that hunting is not authorized in the eastern part of Area 5. Ignorance of the law is not an admissible defence.

Last, in Canadian law, only officially induced errors are recognized. Accepting the appellant’s proposed defence would have the effect of recognizing a new defence to several regulatory offences, that is, the defence of error induced by a friend or a person with particular knowledge of the regulated activity without being a person in authority. It is easy to imagine the enormous ramifications of such a conclusion, which is entirely inconsistent with the principle that ignorance of the law is not a defence to a regulatory offence in Quebec. It would also be inconsistent with the principle that a defence based on legal advice is inadmissible.

Text of the decision: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca