Norman Peel

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing that the evidence at trial did not support the conclusion that the offence occurred in 1999 as alleged in the information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the date of the offence is not an essential element unless it is critical and the accused is misled or prejudiced.

The court found the appellant knew the case he had to meet and the date played no part in his defence.

The plaintiff egg producer sued the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada for negligent investigation after its flock was suspected of salmonella contamination, leading the plaintiff to destroy the flock before final negative test results were received.

The motion judge found that the agencies owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither agency owed a private duty of care to the plaintiff.

The relationship lacked sufficient proximity, and the Health of Animals Act demonstrated a legislative intent to exclude a private law duty through its statutory compensation scheme and immunity clause.