INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Any intentional violation of an Act of Parliament without lawful excuse is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment of up to two years.
SECTION WORDING
126(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
EXPLANATION
Section 126(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the offence of contravening an Act of Parliament. This section applies to any individual who intentionally or wilfully violates any Federal legislation by doing something that the law forbids them from doing or by failing to do something that the law requires them to do. The section states that unless a specific sentence is provided by the law, the offender shall be convicted of an indictable offence and may face imprisonment for up to two years. This section pertains to a wide range of federal laws, including but not limited to income tax laws, health and safety laws, environmental laws, and immigration laws. The section emphasizes the importance of complying with the laws of the land and the need for individuals to act responsibly and with due diligence to avoid violating any federal acts. For example, if an individual fails to file the necessary tax returns, knowing that it is required by the Federal Income Tax Act, they will be guilty of a contravention under this section. Similarly, if an organization disregards the mandatory safety regulations laid down by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, they will be liable for a contravention under this section. In summary, section 126(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada aims to ensure that Canadians abide by the Federal Acts in the interest of the greater good. It serves as a reminder to individuals and organizations to respect and comply with the law and avoid facing legal penalties.
COMMENTARY
Section 126(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an essential provision in Canadian criminal law. It deals with the offense of willful contravention of an act of Parliament, which means breaking the law by intentionally doing something that is prohibited or by failing to do something that is required by law. This provision is applicable to all acts of Parliament, and it covers a wide range of offenses that can attract serious consequences, including imprisonment. The provision applies to all individuals, including corporations and other organizations that may be charged with breach of an act of Parliament. To be found guilty of an offense under this provision, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted or omitted to act willfully without lawful excuse, and that the said act or omission contravened an act of Parliament. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard the integrity of the legislative process and ensure that laws made by the Parliament are respected and obeyed. By giving legal effect to the willful breach of an act of Parliament, this provision also supports the rule of law by holding individuals accountable and deterring future breaches. The punishment for an offense committed under Section 126(1) is precedent by law, and the courts have discretion to impose a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding two years. However, if a specific act of Parliament explicitly provides for a different penalty, then that penalty will be imposed instead. The provision serves to ensure that the Parliament's legislative power is respected and that the laws enacted by lawmakers are followed by the population. The provision acts as a deterrent against activity that would attempt to subvert the will of the Canadian people as expressed through Parliament. Breaches of Acts of Parliament by deliberately ignoring or refusing to comply with them ultimately can undermine the regulations, policies, and functions of the Canadian Government. This provision is therefore crucial to ensuring that the Canadian legal system remains robust and effective. Despite the importance of this provision, there are some criticisms of Section 126(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. One criticism is that the provision is too broad and vague, leaving room for arbitrary application by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Another criticism is that the punishment for an offense under this provision may be too harsh in some situations, particularly for minor breaches of Acts of Parliament. It is, therefore, essential that the courts maintain sufficient discretion when applying Section 126 (1) and properly weigh the severity of the breach in proportion to any punishment imposed. In conclusion, Section 126(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves an important role in protecting the Canadian society and the rule of law. The provision sends a clear message that the Canadian legal system values and expects compliance with the acts of Parliament. As a result, it provides an essential tool to safeguard the integrity of the legislative process and ensure that the laws made by the Parliament are followed by all individuals and organizations in Canada, with the intention of maintaining order and building a fair and just society.
STRATEGY
Section 126(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a wide-ranging provision that criminalizes any willful contravention of an Act of Parliament. This means that individuals can be charged with an indictable offense and sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years if they disobey or ignore any legislation passed by Parliament. These acts can include everything from violating environmental regulations to ignoring health and safety requirements in the workplace. Given the broad scope of Section 126(1), there are several strategic considerations that come into play when dealing with this provision. The first consideration is whether or not the accused had a lawful excuse for their actions or omissions. If they did, then they may be able to argue that they were not guilty of the offense. For example, if an individual is charged with violating an environmental regulation and can show that they were compelled to do so by a higher authority (such as a court order), then they may be able to argue that they had a lawful excuse. Another strategic consideration when dealing with Section 126(1) is the potential for mandatory minimum sentences. If an accused is found guilty of an offense under this provision and no other punishment is specifically prescribed by law, they may be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment. This means that even if a judge believes that a lighter sentence would be appropriate, they may be required to impose the mandatory minimum sentence. In light of these considerations, there are several strategies that can be employed when dealing with Section 126(1) charges. One strategy may be to argue that the accused had a lawful excuse for their actions or omissions. This could involve presenting evidence that shows the accused had no choice but to violate the legislation in question. Another strategy may be to challenge the constitutionality of any mandatory minimum sentences that may apply and argue that they violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Another potential strategy may be to negotiate a plea bargain with the prosecution. This could involve the accused agreeing to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence or other concessions. However, the effectiveness of this strategy will depend on the strength of the evidence against the accused and the willingness of the prosecution to negotiate a deal. Overall, the broad scope of Section 126(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada means that individuals charged under this provision will need to carefully consider their options and develop a strategic defense. Whether it involves arguing a lawful excuse, challenging mandatory minimum sentences, or negotiating a plea bargain, there are several potential strategies that can be employed to achieve the best possible outcome.