Supreme Court of Canada

Hawkins v. R., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 355

Date: 1980-10-07

Brian Middleton Hawkins (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

Her Majesty The Queen (Defendant) Respondent.

1980: June 9; 1980: October 7.

Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Chouinard and Lamer JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Criminal law—Defences—Ignorance of the law—Whether there is a distinction between mistake of law and ignorance of law—Whether ignorance of subordinate legislation may be an excuse—Defence of due diligence—Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 19—Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27—Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-23, s. 27(2)—Statutory Instruments Act, 1970-71-72 (Can.), c. 38, s. 11(2).

The facts of this appeal are to be found in Hawkins v. The Queen (No. 1), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 353 (supra) and in Molis v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 356 (infra).

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissing an appeal from the appellant’s conviction on a charge of trafficking in a restricted drug. Appeal dismissed.

Earl Glasner, for the appellant.

John A. Scollin, Q.C., and David L. Pomerant, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

LAMER J.—I would dismiss this appeal. My reasons in support of that conclusion are to be found in the reasons I gave in considering the appeal of Hawkins’ accomplice, (Albert Peter Molis v. Her Majesty The Queen[^1]) which was decided concurrently with the case at bar.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitor for the appellant: Earl Glasner, Toronto.

Solicitor for the respondent: Roger Tassé, Ottawa.

[^1]: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 356, infra.