The accused was charged with failing to comply with an undertaking that prohibited him from being within 100 metres of a specific address.
A police officer observed the accused standing near the property line of the address.
The accused testified that he believed the condition applied to the building itself, not the surrounding grounds, and that he did not intend to breach the condition while walking his dog.
Applying the subjective fault standard from R. v. Zora, the court found the accused lacked the requisite mens rea and established a lawful excuse by a preponderance of evidence.
The accused was found not guilty and the charge was dismissed.
