R. v. Rube

R. v. Rube

Section 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act is a strict liability offence; a due diligence defence is available; construed in that Charter‑consistent way s.5(1) does not violate s.7; appeal dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1992] 3 SCR 159
Parties
Appellant: Gary Rube; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Intervener: Attorney General for Ontario
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal (charter Challenge) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal (on Appeal From BC Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Strict Liability, Due Diligence Defence, Food and Drugs Act S.5(1) and S.29
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Food and Drugs Regulation Charter S.7 Strict Liability Due Diligence Defence Food and Drugs Act S.5(1) and S.29

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Rube

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Attorney General for Ontario

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal (charter Challenge) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal (on Appeal From BC Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act creates an absolute or strict liability offence
  2. 2 Whether a due diligence defence is available under s.5(1)
  3. 3 Whether s.5(1) infringes s.7 of the Charter if read to impose absolute liability

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act is a strict liability offence; a due diligence defence is available; construed in that Charter‑consistent way s.5(1) does not violate s.7; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Section 5(1) to be treated as strict liability with an available due diligence defence.