A group of patrons arrives, and one individual presents a well-made fake ID that passes initial scrutiny. They are served for two hours before another server notices a subtle flaw during an additional check. What is the primary defence for the licensee against a charge of serving a minor if it's proven the ID was indeed fake and the patron was underage?

Question: A group of patrons arrives, and one individual presents a well-made fake ID that passes initial scrutiny. They are served for two hours before another server notices a subtle flaw during an additional check. What is the primary defence for the licensee against a charge of serving a minor if it's proven the ID was indeed fake and the patron was underage?

Answer options:

• The licensee has no defence, as the ultimate responsibility is to prevent access to minors. ✅ The licensee can demonstrate 'due diligence' by proving staff were properly trained (ProServe), the ID was examined, and signs were posted.
• The licensee can only avoid penalties if the minor admits to using a fake ID.
• The defence relies on the fake ID being so sophisticated that no reasonable person could detect it.

Correct answer: The licensee can demonstrate 'due diligence' by proving staff were properly trained (ProServe), the ID was examined, and signs were posted.

Explanation: In Alberta, a licensee may be able to use the 'due diligence' defence if charged with serving a minor. This means demonstrating that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the offense, such as proper ProServe training for staff, consistent ID checking policies, use of ID checking tools, and posting warning signs. Option A is too absolute. Option C is not a legal defence. Option D is a factor for due diligence but not the entire defence itself.