R. v. Martin
- Citation
- [1992] 1 SCR 838
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 30 March 1992
- Posture
- Criminal (charter) Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 30 March 1992
- Posture
- Criminal (charter) Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Act's provision was properly construed as creating a strict liability offence and the resulting restriction on the presumption of innocence under s.11(d) is justified under s.1 by application of the section 1 analysis in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group; therefore the appeal fails.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Joseph Martin
Appellant Counsel: Morris Manning, Q.C.; Theresa SimoneHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: D. D. Graham ReynoldsAttorney General for Ontario
Intervener Counsel: M. Philip Tunley; W. J. BlacklockAttorney General of Quebec
Intervener Counsel: Monique Rousseau; Gilles LaporteAttorney General of Manitoba
Intervener Counsel: Marva J. SmithAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 22,336
- Report Year: 1,992
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal (charter) Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether s.13 of the Export and Import Permits Act creates a strict liability offence
- 02
Whether the restriction on the presumption of innocence under s.11(d) is justified under s.1 of the Charter
- 03
Whether the section 1 analysis in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group applies to this legislation
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that s.13 of the Export and Import Permits Act infringed the presumption of innocence under s.11(d) of the Charter and that such an infringement could not be justified under s.1.
- Respondent
- Crown argued the provision is properly construed as creating strict liability and that any limitation on the presumption of innocence is justified under s.1; relied on this Court's decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ss.11(d), 1
Presumption of innocence is protected by section 11(d) of the Charter.
- 02
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ss.1, 11(d)
Legislation may create strict liability offences that limit the presumption of innocence, subject to justification under s.1.
- 03
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154
Section 1 justification requires application of the Oakes test and prior s.1 analysis may be applicable to legislation of similar nature.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Act's provision was properly construed as creating a strict liability offence and the resulting restriction on the presumption of innocence under s.11(d) is justified under s.1 by application of the section 1 analysis in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group; therefore the appeal fails.
Obiter and limits
- The section 1 analysis in Wholesale Travel applies where there is no substantive difference in the nature of the legislation.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 30 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· 30 March 1992
R. v. Martin Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-03-30 Report [1992] 1 SCR 838 Case number 22336 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: 22336 Decision Content R. v. Martin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 838 Joseph Martin Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and The Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Manitoba Interveners Indexed as: R. v. Martin File No.: 22336. 1992: March 30. 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 ‑‑ Legislation creating strict liability offence ‑‑ Restriction on presumption of innocence justifiable ‑‑ Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E‑17, s. 13 ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 11 (d). Cases Cited Applied: R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R.
154. Statutes and Regulations Cited Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 11 (d). APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 2 O.R. (3d) 16, 63 C.C.C. (3d) 71, 43 O.A.C. 378, allowing the Crown's appeal from the appellant's acquittal on charges under the Export and Import Permits Act . Appeal dismissed. Morris Manning, Q.C., and Theresa Simone, for the appellant. D. D. Graham Reynolds, for the respondent. M. Philip Tunley and W. J. Blacklock, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario. Monique Rousseau and Gilles Laporte, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec. Marva J. Smith, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that this appeal fails. We agree with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that this legislation can be construed and was properly construed as being of strict liability. 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 section 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 dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Manning & Simone, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: John C. Tait, Ottawa. Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario: The Deputy Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto. Solicitors for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Monique Rousseau and Gilles Laporte, Ste‑Foy. Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.
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.