332:
subcontracts, direct payouts and other benefits. It is also evident that the directing minds who committed this wrongful conduct benefited themselves in a variety of ways including cash receipts, share positions in participating companies, and other arrangements. It was in fact a "share the wealth" project for the benefit of all concerned except the public authorities who awarded the dredging contracts. It is, therefore, impossible to come to any conclusion other than that reached by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal that in these activities the directing minds were acting partly for the benefit of the employing appellant and partly for their own benefit. Accordingly the factual basis for a corporate defence of lack of intended and received corporate benefit is not present in these appeals.
359:
to the corporation.... corporation may, by this means, have more than one directing mind. This must be particularly so in a country such as Canada where corporate operations are frequently geographically widespread. The transportation companies, for example, must of necessity operate by the delegation and sub‑delegation of authority from the corporate centre; by the division and subdivision of the corporate brain; and by decentralizing by delegation the guiding forces in the corporate undertaking. The application of the identification rule in
29:
375:...the concept of vicarious liability in the law of torts has been traditionally fenced in by the concept of the employee acting within "the scope of his employment" and not, in the classic words, "on a frolic of his own". The identification theory, however, is not concerned with the scope of employment in the tortious sense....
358:
The identity doctrine merges the board of directors, the managing director, the superintendent, the manager or anyone else delegated by the board of directors to whom is delegated the governing executive authority of the corporation, and the conduct of any of the merged entities is thereby attributed
308:
However, the doctrine will not extend to cases where the directing mind intentionally defrauds the corporation and when his wrongful actions form the substantial part of the regular activities of his office. Thus, the identification doctrine only operates where the Crown demonstrates that the action
304:
offences, if the court finds the officer or managerial level employee to be a vital organ of the company and virtually its directing mind in the sphere of duty assigned him so that his actions and intent are the action and intent of the company itself, the company can be held criminally liable. The
268:
Was there any evidence that a directing mind of the applicant corporation was acting wholly or in part in fraud of the corporation during the period covered by the indictments herein or acting wholly or in part for his own benefit during that period or contrary to instructions that he not engage in
107:
The identification theory should be applied to determine when a corporation is liable for a crime: the identity of the company and the identity of the directing mind coincides. If a directing mind of the corporation, commits a crime within his or her assigned field of operation, without being
264:
Is the criminal liability of a corporation, when it is based on the misconduct of a directing mind of the corporation, affected because the person who is the directing mind is at the same time acting, in whole or in part, in fraud of the corporation, or wholly or partly for his own benefit or
331:
These contracts were awarded as the result of tenders made by the directing minds of the respective corporate participants. The evidence is overwhelming that as a result of the system developed by their respective directing minds, the appellants received benefits in the form of contracts and
305:
directing mind must act within the scope of his authority — i.e., his actions must be performed within the sector of the corporate operation assigned to him. The sector may be functional, or geographic, or may embrace the entire undertaking of the corporation.
294:... the corporate vehicle now occupies such a large portion of the industrial, commercial and sociological sectors that amenability of the corporation to our criminal law is as essential in the case of the corporation as in the case of the natural person.
393:
The key factor which distinguishes directing minds from normal employees is the capacity to exercise decision-making authority on matters of corporate policy, rather than merely to give effect to such policy on an operational basis....
418:
prescribing a legal duty for anyone directing the work of another person to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.
54:
Canadian Dredge & Dock
Company, Limited, Marine Industries Limited, The J.P. Porter Company Limited, and Richelieu Dredging Corporation Inc. v. Her Majesty The Queen
199:
for liability, which states that culpability for acts and mental states of a corporation can be represented by employees and officers on the basis that they are the "
363:... may not accord with the realities of life in our country, however appropriate we may find to be the enunciation of the abstract principles of law there made.
231:
had occurred, and a complex trial involving twenty defendants took place. Among the defendants were four corporations (Canadian Dredge & Dock
Company,
269:
illegal activities in the course of his duties and, if so, is the criminal liability of the corporation affected by any one or more of such circumstances?
612:
627:
108:
totally in fraud of the corporation, which by design or result benefits the corporation, then the corporation is also liable for the crime.
622:
381:
617:
350:
235:, The J.P. Porter Company Limited, and Richelieu Dredging Corporation Inc.) which were charged and convicted with the offences of
367:
However, it did confirm the rejection of US jurisprudence on the subject, which has favoured the use of the doctrine of
290:— to a corporation where the actor‑employee who physically committed the offence is the ego of it. As he observed:
144:
564:
283:
196:
257:
253:
188:
82:
34:
589:
452:
245:
436:
28:
220:
200:
368:
345:
287:
192:
265:
contrary to instructions that he not engage in any illegal activities in the course of his duties?
240:
212:
632:
232:
148:
386:
128:
256:
dismissed all appeals relating to the convictions, and the defendants appealed to the
606:
279:
176:
Laskin C.J. and
Ritchie J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
156:
152:
140:
132:
60:
282:, for a unanimous Court, held the four companies liable of bid rigging under the
228:
224:
121:
412:
227:, for which contracts were granted. It was later discovered that a process of
136:
402:
was amended to revise the rules relating to criminal liability, including:
348:
from that determined in other
Commonwealth jurisprudence, most notably in
300:
216:
592:
An Act to amend the
Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations)
327:
In this appeal, the Crown's case was successful. As Estey J noted:
236:
89:, (1981), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 193, dismissing appeals from convictions.
408:
extending liability to organizations that are not corporations,
344:
marked a departure of
Canadian jurisprudence in the matter of
321:
was by design or result partly for the benefit of the company.
379:
The identification doctrine was further elaborated upon in
211:
In 1967–1973, the
Government of Canada issued a series of
167:
162:
112:
101:
93:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
315:was within the field of operation assigned to him,
286:, which assigns primary liability — as opposed to
318:was not totally in fraud of the corporation, and
391:
373:
356:
329:
292:
415:and those involving other types of fault, and
411:distinguishing between offences that involve
8:
449:Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. v. The Queen
467:, RSC 1970, c C‑34, ss 338(1), 423(1)(d)
561:RhĂ´ne (The) v. Peter A.B. Widener (The)
429:
18:
7:
195:where the Court adopted the English
577:The Rhone v. The Peter A.B. Widener
567:, 1 SCR 497 (25 February 1993)
437:SCC Case Information - Docket 16425
382:The Rhone v. The Peter A.B. Widener
14:
351:Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass
184:R v Canadian Dredge & Dock Co
22:R v Canadian Dredge & Dock Co
27:
87:sub nom. R. v. McNamara (No. 1)
455:, 1 SCR 662 (23 May 1985)
81:APPEALS from judgments of the
1:
613:Supreme Court of Canada cases
309:taken by the directing mind:
337:Impact and subsequent events
278:All appeals were dismissed.
219:operations performed in the
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
628:Canadian corporate case law
203:" of the corporate entity.
649:
623:Canadian criminal case law
618:1985 in Canadian case law
260:on the following issues:
233:Marine Industries Limited
175:
117:
106:
43:Hearing: May 24–26, 1983
26:
354:. As Estey J explained:
439:Supreme Court of Canada
284:identification doctrine
258:Supreme Court of Canada
254:Ontario Court of Appeal
249:in effect at the time.
197:identification doctrine
189:Supreme Court of Canada
83:Ontario Court of Appeal
35:Supreme Court of Canada
396:
377:
365:
334:
296:
45:Judgment: May 23, 1985
274:Opinion of the Court
221:Saint Lawrence River
168:Unanimous reasons by
594:(S.C. 2003, c. 21)"
369:vicarious liability
346:corporate liability
298:Therefore, even in
288:vicarious liability
223:and several of the
193:corporate liability
97:Appeals dismissed.
180:
179:
640:
598:
597:
586:
580:
574:
568:
558:
552:
546:
540:
534:
528:
522:
516:
510:
504:
498:
492:
486:
480:
474:
468:
462:
456:
446:
440:
434:
149:Julien Chouinard
145:William McIntyre
126:Puisne Justices:
113:Court membership
31:
19:
648:
647:
643:
642:
641:
639:
638:
637:
603:
602:
601:
588:
587:
583:
575:
571:
565:1993 CanLII 163
559:
555:
549:Canadian Dredge
547:
543:
537:Canadian Dredge
535:
531:
525:Canadian Dredge
523:
519:
513:Canadian Dredge
511:
507:
501:Canadian Dredge
499:
495:
489:Canadian Dredge
487:
483:
477:Canadian Dredge
475:
471:
463:
459:
447:
443:
435:
431:
427:
342:Canadian Dredge
339:
276:
209:
124:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
646:
644:
636:
635:
630:
625:
620:
615:
605:
604:
600:
599:
581:
569:
553:
541:
529:
517:
505:
493:
481:
469:
457:
453:1985 CanLII 32
441:
428:
426:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
409:
338:
335:
325:
324:
323:
322:
319:
316:
275:
272:
271:
270:
266:
208:
205:
201:directing mind
187:is a landmark
178:
177:
173:
172:
169:
165:
164:
160:
159:
129:Roland Ritchie
119:Chief Justice:
115:
114:
110:
109:
104:
103:
99:
98:
95:
91:
90:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
645:
634:
631:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
616:
614:
611:
610:
608:
595:
593:
585:
582:
578:
573:
570:
566:
562:
557:
554:
550:
545:
542:
538:
533:
530:
526:
521:
518:
514:
509:
506:
502:
497:
494:
490:
485:
482:
478:
473:
470:
466:
465:Criminal Code
461:
458:
454:
450:
445:
442:
438:
433:
430:
424:
417:
414:
410:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
401:
400:Criminal Code
398:In 2003, the
395:
390:
388:
384:
383:
376:
372:
370:
364:
362:
355:
353:
352:
347:
343:
336:
333:
328:
320:
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
306:
303:
302:
295:
291:
289:
285:
281:
273:
267:
263:
262:
261:
259:
255:
250:
248:
247:
246:Criminal Code
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
206:
204:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
174:
170:
166:
163:Reasons given
161:
158:
157:Bertha Wilson
154:
153:Antonio Lamer
150:
146:
142:
141:Willard Estey
138:
134:
133:Brian Dickson
130:
127:
123:
120:
116:
111:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
591:
584:
576:
572:
560:
556:
548:
544:
536:
532:
524:
520:
512:
508:
500:
496:
488:
484:
476:
472:
464:
460:
448:
444:
432:
399:
397:
392:
380:
378:
374:
366:
360:
357:
349:
341:
340:
330:
326:
307:
299:
297:
293:
277:
251:
244:
210:
191:decision on
183:
182:
181:
125:
118:
86:
65:1 S.C.R. 662
53:
33:
579:, at p. 526
387:Iacobucci J
229:bid rigging
225:Great Lakes
122:Bora Laskin
607:Categories
425:References
413:negligence
243:under the
241:conspiracy
207:Background
137:Jean Beetz
70:Docket No.
551:, par. 21
539:, par. 68
527:, par. 68
515:, par. 66
503:, par. 21
491:, par. 31
61:Citations
633:Dredging
479:, par. 2
389:stated:
385:, where
301:mens rea
217:dredging
171:Estey J.
563:,
451:,
280:Estey J
213:tenders
102:Holding
94:Ruling
73:16425
361:Tesco
237:fraud
252:The
239:and
215:for
609::
371::
155:,
151:,
147:,
143:,
139:,
135:,
131:,
85:,
596:.
590:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
