Example of ignorance ot the law excuses no one?

It has always been a fundamental principle of the law that "ignorance of law is no excuse". However in recognition of the enormous increase in the number of laws that have been created since this principle was first enunciated, an exception to this rule was enunciated by a minority concurring decision of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1995 case of R. v. Jorgensen.1 In this case, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer proposed an exception to the rule called "officially induced error". In doing so, he reasoned that While knowledge of the law is to be encouraged, it is certainly reasonable for someone to have assumed he knows the law after consulting a representative of the state acting in a capacity which makes him [an] expert of that particular subject.2 After reviewing the commentary of legal scholars, American court

cases and some lower level Canadian court cases, the Chief Justice set out six elements to be established by an accused person in order to establish a defence or excuse of officially induced error.

These elements are as follows:

1. The accused made an error of law or an error of mixed law and fact3;

2. The accused considered the legal consequences of his or her actions before

committing the prohibited act;

3. The accused obtained advice from an appropriate official, such as a government

official involved in the administration of the law in question;

4. The advice received was on its face reasonable;

5. The advice received was erroneous; and

6. The accused relied upon the erroneous advice in committing the prohibited act.

Under Justice Lamar's proposed test, if all six elements were clearly established, the

accused would be excused from committing the offence in spite of its wrongfulness and a judicial stay of proceedings would be entered.