R. v. Martin, [1992] 1 SCR 838

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.