Kimberly Prost

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.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Applying the principles from Collins, Sieben, and Hamill, the Court found no error in the lower court's exercise of its jurisdiction to review the trial judge's finding under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed from the bench.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal which allowed an appeal from the appellant's acquittal on charges under the Combines Investigation Act and ordered a new trial.

The issue was the admissibility of evidence discovered as a result of an unconstitutional search.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's exercise of its jurisdiction to review the trial judge's finding under section 24(2) of the Charter.