Lévis (City) - v. Tétreault - 2006 SCC 12

Sep 19, 2026

Uploaded by Eden

Case law indexed as Lévis (City) v. Tétreault and Lévis (City) v. 2629-4470 Québec inc., Neutral Citation 2006 SCC 12 (SCC), involving provincial offences related to highway safety. The issues address whether ss. 31.1 and 93.1 of the Highway Safety Code create strict liability offences, and if so, whether due diligence is established. The matter also examines the availability and conditions of the defence of officially induced error under Canadian criminal law, following misleading or incomplete information from an official source.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

Provincial offences - Highway safety

Nature of offences - strict or absolute liability

Due diligence defence

Defence - officially induced error

Officially induced error in Canadian criminal law

Conditions for the defence

City of Lévis Appellant v. Louis Tétreault Respondent and Attorney General of Canada Intervener -and City of Lévis Appellant v. 2629-4470 Québec inc. Respondent and Attorney General of Canada Intervener Indexed as: Lévis (City) v. Tétreault; Lévis (City) v. 2629-4470 Québec inc. Neutral citation: 2006 SCC 12. File Nos.: 30380, 30381. 2005: October 21; 2006: April 13. Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC Provincial offences — Highway safety — Nature of offences—Strict or absolute liability—Putting motor vehicle back into operation without having paid required registration fees — Operating motor vehicle without having paid fees to renew driver’s licence—Whether ss. 31.1 and 93.1 of Highway Safety Code create strict liability offences—If so, whether defence of due diligence made out—Highway Safety Code, R.S.Q., c. C-24.2, ss. 31.1, 93.1. Provincial offences—Defences—Officially induced error — Putting motor vehicle back into operation Ville de Lévis Appelante c. Louis Tétreault Intimé et Procureur général du Canada Intervenant-et Ville de Lévis Appelante c. 2629-4470 Québec inc. Intiméeet Procureur général du Canada Intervenant Répertorié : Lévis (Ville) c. Tétreault; Lévis (Ville) c. 2629-4470 Québec inc. Référence neutre : 2006 CSC 12. Nos du greffe : 30380, 30381. 2005 : 21 octobre; 2006 : 13 avril. Présents : La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella et Charron. EN APPEL DE LA COUR D’APPEL DU QUÉBEC Infractions provinciales—Sécurité routière—Nature des infractions — Responsabilité stricte ou absolue —Mise en circulation d’un véhicule automobile sans avoir payé les droits d’immatriculation exigés — Conduited’un véhicule automobile sans avoir payé les droits de renouvellement du permis de conduire — Les articles 31.1 et 93.1 du Code de la sécurité routière créent-ils des infractions de responsabilité stricte?—Dans l’affirmative, la défense de diligence raisonnable a-t-elle été établie?—Code de la sécurité routière, L.R.Q., ch. C-24.2, art. 31.1, 93.1. Infractions provinciales — Moyens de défense —Erreur provoquéepar une personne en autorité—Mise without having paid required registration fees—Accused claiming to have been misled by erroneous information obtained from official regarding procedure for paying fees relating to registration— Whether defence of officially induced error available in Canadian criminal law— If so, whether accused establishing that conditions under which this defence available have been met. Criminal law—Defences—Officially induced error—Constituent elements of defence and conditions under which it available. The respondent company, which is charged with operating a motor vehicle for which the fees relating to its registration had not been paid, raised the defences of due diligence and officially induced error, alleging that a representative of the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (“SAAQ”) had had it pay registration fees corresponding to a 15-month period and had told it that a renewal notice would be sent to it before the period expired. Because of an error, the SAAQ sent the notice to the company with an incomplete address and the postal service returned it to the sender. As for the respondent T, who is charged with driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s licence, he raised the defence of due diligence, stating that he was unaware that the date appearing on his licence was the date the licence expired rather than a payment due date. The Municipal Court of the city of Lévis found that ss. 31.1 (registration) and 93.1 (driver’s licence) of the Highway Safety Code create strict liability offences and, accepting their due diligence defence, acquitted the company and T. The Superior Court upheld the acquittals, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the city’s applications for leave to appeal.

FAQs

What legal question does the case address regarding ss. 31.1 and 93.1 of the Highway Safety Code?

The case addresses whether ss. 31.1 and 93.1 create strict liability offences, rather than absolute liability offences.

How does the case treat the due diligence defence?

The court examines whether the defence of due diligence is made out, with lower courts having accepted due diligence in acquitting the accused.

What is the issue concerning officially induced error in Canadian criminal law?

The case considers whether the defence of officially induced error is available in Canadian criminal law and, if available, whether the accused met the conditions for it based on erroneous information obtained from an official source.

Sep 19, 2026

Uploaded by Eden