R. v. Ellis-Don Ltd.
- Citation
- [1992] 1 SCR 840
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 31 March 1992
- Posture
- Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (charter/criminal) / On Appeal From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Remitted to the Court of Appeal for Disposal of Other Grounds
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 31 March 1992
- Posture
- Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (charter/criminal) / On Appeal From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Remitted to the Court of Appeal for Disposal of Other Grounds
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The reverse onus provision in s.37(1),(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, though restricting the s.11(d) presumption of innocence, is subject to the s.1 Oakes analysis as applied in R. v. Wholesale Travel and is justifiable; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposal of other grounds.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposal of other grounds of appeal
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Case remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposition of other grounds of appeal
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: W. J. Blacklock; Phil Tunley; Andrea EssonEllis‑Don Limited
Respondent Counsel: Earl A. Cherniak Q.C.; Kirk F. StevensRocco Morra
Respondent Counsel: Earl A. Cherniak Q.C.; Kirk F. StevensAttorney General of Canada
Intervener Counsel: Michael R. Dambrot Q.C.; Robert J. FraterAttorney General of Quebec
Intervener Counsel: Monique Rousseau; Gilles LaporteAttorney General of Manitoba
Intervener Counsel: Marva J. SmithAttorney General for Alberta
Intervener Counsel: James C. RobbCanadian Environmental Law Association
Intervener Counsel: Stephen T. Goudge; Barbara Rutherford03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (charter/criminal) / On Appeal From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Appeal Allowed and Remitted to the Court of Appeal for Disposal of Other Grounds
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the reverse onus provision in s.37 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act infringes s.11(d) presumption of innocence
- 02
Whether any infringement of s.11(d) is justifiable under s.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- 03
Whether the statutory defence and the common law due diligence defence may properly be required to be established by the accused on the balance of probabilities
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Crown argued the reverse onus in s.37 is permissible and, if it infringes s.11(d), the infringement is justified under s.1; relied on this Court's decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel for the applicable s.1 analysis.
- Respondent
- Accused argued the reverse onus violates the presumption of innocence under s.11(d) and cannot be justified under s.1; contended that requiring accused to prove defences on balance of probabilities improperly shifts burden of proof.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.11(d)
Presumption of innocence protected by s.11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- 02
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; s.1 Charter analysis
Where Charter rights are infringed the Oakes proportionality analysis under s.1 determines justification
- 03
Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.321, s.37; common law due diligence doctrine
Statutory defences and common law due diligence issues may require proof by the accused on a balance of probabilities depending on statutory context and s.1 justification
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The reverse onus provision in s.37(1),(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, though restricting the s.11(d) presumption of innocence, is subject to the s.1 Oakes analysis as applied in R. v. Wholesale Travel and is justifiable; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposal of other grounds.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposal of other grounds of appeal
- Appeal allowed
- Case remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposition of other grounds of appeal
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 31 March 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 31 March 1992
R. v. Ellis-Don Ltd. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-03-31 Report [1992] 1 SCR 840 Case number 22297 Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Stevenson, William; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Ontario Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 22297 Decision Content R. v. Ellis‑Don Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 840 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Ellis‑Don Limited and Rocco Morra Respondents and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the Attorney General for Alberta and the Canadian Environmental Law Association Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Ellis‑Don Ltd. File No.: 22297. 1992: March 31. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Presumption of innocence ‑‑ Reverse onus provision ‑‑ Statutory defence and common law defence of due diligence to be established by accused on balance of probabilities ‑‑ Restriction on presumption of innocence justifiable ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 11 (d) ‑‑ Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 321, s. 37(1), (2). Cases Cited Applied: R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R.
154. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 193, 42 O.A.C. 49, 76 D.L.R. (4th) 347, 61 C.C.C. (3d) 423, 2 C.R. (4th) 118, 5 C.R.R. (2d) 263, allowing the appeal by the accused from a judgment of the District Court dismissing their appeal from convictions under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. Appeal allowed. W. J. Blacklock, Phil Tunley and Andrea Esson, for the appellant. Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., and Kirk F. Stevens, for the respondents. Michael R. Dambrot, Q.C., and Robert J. Frater, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada. Monique Rousseau and Gilles Laporte, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec. Marva J. Smith, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba. James C. Robb, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta. Stephen T. Goudge and Barbara Rutherford, for the intervener the Canadian Environmental Law Association. //Lamer C.J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that this appeal must succeed. The existence of a restriction to s. 11 (d) is governed by this Court's decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R.
154. The s. 1 analysis in Wholesale is applicable here, as there is no difference of substance between the nature of the legislation in that case and this one. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposal of the other grounds of appeal raised below and not dealt with by the Court of Appeal. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: The Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondents: Lerner & Associates, Toronto. Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa. Solicitors for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Gilles Laporte and Monique Rousseau, Ste‑Foy. Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg. Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta: James C. Robb, Edmonton. Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Environmental Law Association: Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto; Barbara Rutherford, Toronto.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.