R. v. Rube, [1992] 3 SCR 159

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.