Administrative Monetary Penalty

Last updated

An Administrative Monetary Penalty is a civil penalty imposed by a regulator for a contravention of an Act, regulation or by-law. [1] It is issued upon discovery of an unlawful event, and is due and payable subject only to any rights of review that may be available under the AMP's implementing scheme. [1] It is regulatory in nature, rather than criminal, and is intended to secure compliance with a regulatory scheme, [1] and it can be employed with the use of other administrative sanctions, such as demerit points and license suspensions. [2]

Contents

Nature

AMPs differ from ordinary fines, such as those for parking tickets, in that, under the relevant legislation: [3]

  1. the AMP applies to a narrower segment of the general population (for example, a regulated industry);
  2. imposing an AMP involves a number of steps, for instance, the person may first be given a warning and/or an opportunity to address the statutory decision-maker's concerns (that is, to comply with the scheme);
  3. the decision to impose an AMP is made by a senior official such as a Director or a person designated by that Director;
  4. the criteria to guide the determination whether to impose and how to set the amount of an AMP is set out;
  5. within those criteria, the person empowered to levy the penalty may be given significant discretion to decide whether to impose an AMP and to determine the appropriate amount of the AMP; and
  6. the reconsideration or review/appeal of an AMP by the statutory decision-maker and/or an independent, specialized tribunalis allowed.

AMPs by jurisdiction

United Kingdom

Legislation enabling general schemes of fixed and variable monetary penalties—in addition to other sanctions—has been introduced through Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 . [4]

Under the Road Traffic Act 1991—and subsequently expanded under part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 —AMPs known as "penalty charge notices" have replaced fixed penalty notices where local authorities have adopted schemes of decriminalised parking enforcement. In some areas such as London, the challenge process for PCNs can be completed online, via the Internet. [5]

Canada

In Guindon v Canada , [6] the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that AMPs are generally considered to be administrative in nature and thus not subject to the legal protections provided under s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . They are held not to arise from criminal proceedings, as "the purpose ... is to promote honesty and deter gross negligence" [7] and "it is rational that the state would only wish to impose a penalty on those who engage in misconduct knowingly, recklessly, or with a particular intention." [8] They also do not attract a true penal consequence, as "high administrative monetary penalties [are] required to encourage compliance with the administrative regime. The relevant question is not the amount of the penalty in absolute terms, it is whether the amount serves regulatory rather than penal purposes." [9]

However, normal standards of judicial review continue to apply. [10] In Guindon, the Federal Court of Appeal provided more guidance in its judgment as to when an administrative penalty would be considered disproportionate. [11] The Ontario Court of Appeal has given a reasoned evaluation for a monetary penalty that arose from a securities proceeding, [12] and the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec has recognized that a person can bring forward the "reasonable, prudent and diligent person" defence that exists in civil law against the imposition of AMPs. [13]

The Government of Canada has introduced various AMP schemes on a sector-by-sector basis, [14] although some agencies prefer to pursue ticketing schemes for specified summary offences, notably under the Contraventions Act . [15]

Ontario is considering creating a new AMP system to address minor offences that are currently prosecuted under its Provincial Offences Act. The Attorney General of Ontario has requested input into the new system being proposed. [16] In response, some have suggested that, with proper planning, an online system would be more cost-efficient and promote easier access to justice for people in rural areas and for those with language barriers. [17] However, some people fear that a new system will be cumbersome and will not allow access to justice. [18]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

<i>Youth Criminal Justice Act</i> Canadian statute

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a Canadian statute, which came into effect on April 1, 2003. It covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences. The Act replaced the Young Offenders Act, which itself was a replacement for the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

Taxation in Canada is a prerogative shared between the federal government and the various provincial and territorial legislatures.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

In many civil law countries a contravention is a non-criminal offense, similar to an infraction or civil penalty in common law countries.

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions.

Corporate liability, also referred to as liability of legal persons, determines the extent to which a company as a legal person can be held liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs and, in some legal systems, for those of other associates and business partners.

<i>Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act</i>

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the criminal law power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) is an agency of the Government of Canada that enforces consumer protection legislation, regulations and industry commitments by federally regulated financial entities. It also provides programs and information to help consumers understand their rights and responsibilities when dealing with financial institutions and promotes financial literacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Police tribunal (Belgium)</span> Belgian court for traffic and minor crimes

The police tribunal is the traffic court and trial court which tries minor contraventions in the judicial system of Belgium. It is the lowest Belgian court with criminal jurisdiction. There is a police tribunal for each judicial arrondissement ("district"), except for Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, where there are multiple police tribunals due to the area's sensitive linguistic situation. Most of them hear cases in multiple seats per arrondissement. As of 2018, there are 15 police tribunals in total, who hear cases in 38 seats. Further below, an overview is provided of all seats of the police tribunal per judicial arrondissement.

<i>Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc, 2012 SCC 67 is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with whether an obligation incurred under regulatory action constitutes a claim under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, thus becoming subject to a stay of proceedings.

<i>Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG), 2014 SCC 40 is a significant case from the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian administrative law, focusing on whether the standard of review framework set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick applies to decisions of the Governor in Council of Canada, and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction.

Cayman has introduced a new regime for the licensing and registration of directors of investment fund companies that are “regulated” under the Mutual Funds Law and directors of companies registered as “excluded persons” under paragraphs 1 and 4 of Schedule 4 of the Securities Investment and Business Law. Each relevant entity is defined in the Law as a “Covered Entity”.

<i>R v Nur</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15, is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences in Canada.

<i>Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Quebec (AG) v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 14 is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the federal government's ability to destroy information related to the Canadian long-gun registry pursuant to the federal criminal law power.

<i>Guindon v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Guindon v Canada, 2015 SCC 41 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the distinction between criminal and regulatory penalties, for the purposes of s.11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also provides guidance on when the Court will consider constitutional issues when such had not been argued in the lower courts.

<i>Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference re Pan‑Canadian Securities Regulation, 2018 SCC 48 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the Canadian doctrine of cooperative federalism and how it intersects with the power of the Parliament of Canada over trade and commerce, as well as discussing the nature of parliamentary sovereignty in Canada.

<i>Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc, 2020 SCC 25 is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the position of the anti-deprivation rule within Canadian insolvency law. It held that, because of differences in Canadian law, the rule has wider application relative to the English rule applied by the UK Supreme Court in Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd.

References

  1. 1 2 3 LCO 2011, p. 50.
  2. ↑ AG Ontario 2015, p. 2.
  3. ↑ AG BC 2008, p. 5.
  4. ↑ Prabhu 2011, pp. 130–132.
  5. ↑ "Environment and Traffic Adjudicators". London Tribunals . Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  6. ↑ Guindon v Canada , 2015 SCC 41
  7. ↑ Guindon, par. 62
  8. ↑ Guindon, par. 72
  9. ↑ Guindon, par. 81
  10. ↑ Daly, Paul (August 3, 2015). "It's Just (a) Fine: Guindon v. Canada, 2015 SCC 41". administrativelawmatters.com.
  11. ↑ Canada v Guindon, 2013 FCA 153 at par. 44(12 June 2013)
  12. ↑ Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2012 ONCA 208 at par. 52, 55, 110 OR (3d) 492(29 March 2012)
  13. ↑ Gagné, Michel; Frémont, Catherine (August 4, 2015). "Supreme Court of Canada upholds the constitutional validity of administrative monetary penalties". canadianenergylawblog.com. McCarthy Tétrault. Archived from the original on September 10, 2015., citing Excavation René St-Pierre Inc. c Québec, 2015 QCTAQ 02386 [ permanent dead link ]
  14. ↑ including the Aeronautics Act , the Customs Act, the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
  15. ↑ Prabhu 2011, pp. 139–140.
  16. ↑ AG Ontario 2015, p. 1.
  17. ↑ Chatten, David. "Online AMP System - A Strong Move for Ontario" . Retrieved 5 September 2015.
  18. ↑ "Driving Down Business". Paralegal Scope Magazine. 3 March 2015. Archived from the original on 2 October 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.