b'Appendix 2Essential elements and the Doyon decision 33Appendix 2 Essential elementsand the Doyon decision As stated in Section 1.2 of this document, the most effective defence is generallyto challenge the elements of the violation alleged in the notice of violation issuedby the agency.On this front, the Federal Court of Appeal has rendered an important decision on essential elements and the regime of absolute liability, the Doyon decision. 8We strongly recommend that you consult that decision.The strict liability regime is very punitive and is characterized by, among other things, the fact that the defences of mistake of facts and due diligence are not available under section 18 of the AAAMP Act. This regime is also characterized by a reduced burden of proof.This means, first of all, that the offender cannot raise as a defence the fact that they took all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission of the alleged violation.Second, the current regime does not recognize the right to make a mistake, even if the mistake could have been made by a reasonable person in the same circumstances. 9Third, the current regime lowers the burden of proof required of the agency that issued a notice of violation. Unlike in the criminal and penal systems, an offender does not have the benefit of reasonable doubt. Under section 19 of the AAAMP Act, the burden of proof is based on a balance of probabilities, which is the same principle that applies in civil matters. Finally, the Federal Court of Appeal has found that each violation under this regime is composed of its essential elements. 10In order for an offender to be found guilty, each of the elements of the alleged violation must be proven by the agency that issued the notice of violation. The agency must therefore prove each element of the violation on a balance of probabilities, or the notice of violation will be set aside. 8 Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 152.9Ibid at para 24.10Ibid at paras 39 to 42 (example).'