Guindon V. Canada, 2015 SCC 41
In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of administrative monetary penalties. Although the decision arose in the context of the Income Tax Act, it is expected to have important consequences in other contexts, including in environmental regulatory matters where the imposition of monetary penalties is now common practice.
Ms. Guindon was fined more than $500,000 by the Canada Revenue Agency for knowingly making false statements in donation receipts she issued. She argued that the penalty imposed upon her was criminal in nature and that she was a person "charged with an offence" within the meaning of s. 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and entitled to the safeguards therein.
A majority of the Court considered the test for determining whether a monetary penalty has "true penal consequences," including the magnitude of the penalty, to whom it is paid, whether the magnitude is determined by regulatory considerations or principles of criminal sentencing, and the stigma associated with the penalty. The majority concluded that the fine in this case was meant to deter non-compliance with the Income Tax Act. Although the fine was large, it served a regulatory, not a penal, purpose. Thus, the proceedings were administrative (not criminal) in nature and Ms. Guindon was not entitled to Charter protections.
For more on this decision and it potential impacts, see McCarthy Tétrault LLP's Canadian Energy Perspectives blog post entitled "Supreme Court of Canada upholds the constitutional validity of administrative monetary penalties."
To view the original article please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.