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.