2 total
Statutory due diligence defence for selling tobacco to minors requires reasonable care, not just honest human error.
The respondent, a convenience store clerk, sold cigarettes to a 17-year-old test shopper after misreading the birth year on the shopper's identification due to 'human error'.
She was convicted of selling tobacco to a minor under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, but the summary conviction appeal court overturned the conviction, finding her honest mistake satisfied the statutory defence.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the statutory due diligence defence requires a reasonable belief formed after exercising reasonable care in reviewing the identification, which a mere unexplained human error does not satisfy.
Random test shopping for regulatory compliance does not constitute entrapment even without reasonable suspicion.
The appellant, a store clerk, sold cigarettes to a 17-year-old test shopper without asking for identification and was convicted under the Smoke Free Ontario Act.
He appealed, arguing that the random compliance check constituted entrapment because the authorities lacked reasonable suspicion that he or the store were engaged in illegal activity.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the criminal law doctrine of entrapment, specifically the requirement for reasonable suspicion, does not apply to bona fide random test shopping used to monitor compliance with regulatory statutes.
