David L. Pomerant

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving three complainants, raising issues regarding delays in reporting the alleged incidents.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, finding that the trial judge made no error in law.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in a restricted drug, arguing that ignorance of subordinate legislation could serve as an excuse or a defence of due diligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, relying on the reasons provided in the concurrent appeal of the appellant's accomplice, Molis v. The Queen.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in a restricted drug after the substance was added to Schedule H of the Food and Drugs Act via a regulation published in the Canada Gazette.

The appellant argued that he was unaware of the regulation and had exercised due diligence in attempting to ascertain the law.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that section 19 of the Criminal Code is an absolute bar to a defence of ignorance of the law, including subordinate legislation.

The Court further clarified that the defence of due diligence applies only to the fulfilment of a duty imposed by law, not to the ascertainment of the law's existence.