John A. Scollin

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 appellants were charged with conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose under s. 423(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, specifically to prevent members of a union from participating in lawful union activities under s. 110(1) of the Canada Labour Code.

The Provincial Court quashed the information, but the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Court of Appeal ordered the matter to proceed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that 'unlawful purpose' in s. 423(2)(a) means contrary to law (prohibited by federal or provincial legislation).

Since preventing participation in union activities is not explicitly prohibited by legislation, the information did not disclose an offence known to law.

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.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in a restricted drug, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of intercepted private communications.

The appellant contended there was no evidence upon which the authorizing judge could have granted the wiretap authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed this ground of appeal, holding that even if such an authorization is reviewable by a trial judge, the Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings that there was some evidence to support the authorization.