Practical problems, especially the necessity of proving criminal intent, make the criminal law inefficient in comparison with the relative flexibility provided for regulatory offenses. In regulatory offenses, the burden is on defendants to prove that they have used due diligence or that a reasonable mistake of fact occurred. The standard of reasonableness is objective rather than subjective, so the corporation cannot escape responsibility by claiming that its officers believed the incorrect that cause the offense if a reasonable layperson would not have made that mistake. In addition, regulatory offenders are held by the standards of strict liability to a higher standard of conduct than they would be under criminal law due to the standards of proof. New criminal laws are unnecessary for environmental damage, because relevant offenses in Canada's Criminal Code can be applied where intentional harm or negligence is suspected. Fines and penal sanctions are already being used for regulatory offenses. Canadian governments have been lax in the past but are now becoming increasingly interested in enforcement, pushed by tort actions and due diligence defenses that make governments complicit in the offense if their actions are deemed insufficient. In addition, the Federal Supreme Court is finally developing a distinctive approach that legitimizes the imposition of penal liability, including imprisonment, for regulatory offenders. Notes