James D. Bissell

The appellant, a commercial fisherman, was charged with overfishing under the Fisheries Act.

At trial, the Crown sought to introduce statutorily required hail reports and fishing logs completed by the appellant.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 7 of the Charter, finding it violated the principle against self-incrimination, and acquitted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the principle against self-incrimination does not prevent the Crown from relying on statutorily required records in a regulatory prosecution, as the regulatory context lacks the adversarial and coercive elements present in criminal investigations.

The appellant was charged with selling food in a false, misleading, or deceptive manner under s. 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act.

The issue on appeal was whether the offence was one of absolute or strict liability, and whether it offended s. 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory wording did not explicitly exclude a defence of due diligence.

Presuming that Parliament intends its legislation to conform to the Charter, the Court concluded that s. 5(1) creates a strict liability offence for which a defence of due diligence is available.

The appeal was dismissed.