What is due diligence for the purposes of a penalties that apply “automatically” such as under subsection 167(2)? Due diligence depends on
whether the person believed on reasonable grounds in a non-existent state of facts which, if it had existed, would have made his or her act or omission innocent, or whether he or she took all reasonable precautions to avoid the event leading to imposition of the penalty
Corp. de l’École Polytechnique v Canada, 2004 FCA 127, para 28
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, however: “[D]ue diligence consists in taking steps to fulfil a duty imposed by law and not in the ascertainment of the existence of a statutory prohibition or its interpretation” per R v Pontes, 1995 CanLII 61, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44.
For a recent application of the first principle stated above, see Chan v R, 2022 TCC 87 (informal procedure).
