R. v. Rube

R. v. Rube
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1992-10-09
Report
[1992] 3 SCR 159
Case number
22421
Judges
Lamer, Antonio; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Constitutional law
Food and drugs
Notes
SCC Case Information: 22421
Decision Content
R. v. Rube, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 159
Gary Rube Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
The Attorney General for Ontario Intervener
Indexed as: R. v. Rube
File No.: 22421.
1992: October 9.
Present: Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Fundamental justice -- Strict liability -- Food and drugs -- Accused charged with selling food in false, misleading or deceptive manner under s. 5(1) of Food and Drugs Act -- Section 5(1) creating strict liability offence -- Defence of due diligence available
-- Section 5(1) not offending s. 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
-- Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27, ss. 5, 29.
Food and drugs -- Mens rea -- Selling food in false, misleading or deceptive manner -- Strict liability offence -- Defence of due diligence available
-- Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27, ss. 5, 29.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 106, 63 C.C.C. (3d) 47, [1991] 4 W.W.R. 430, allowing the Crown's appeal from a judgment of Taggart Co. Ct. J. granting a stay of proceedings. Appeal dismissed.
Sheldon Goldberg and Jeff Ray, for the appellant.
James D. Bissell, Q.C., and Kimberly Prost, for the respondent.
M. Philip Tunley, for the intervener.
//Lamer C.J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Lamer C.J. -- This appeal comes to us as of right. We agree with the Court of Appeal of British Columbia that the wording of the sections [ss. 5(1) and 29 of the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27] is open to interpretation and does not explicitly exclude a defence of due diligence. We agree that given the penalties, this is not an offence that could, without offending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , be one of absolute liability.
On the presumption that Parliament intends its legislation to conform to the exigencies of the Charter , we are of the view that the section [s. 5(1) of the Act] is one of strict liability and that a defence of due diligence is available to the accused. The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: Sheldon Goldberg, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent: J.C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener: George Thomson, Toronto.