R. v. Ellis‑Don Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 840
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Ellis‑Don Limited and Rocco Morra Respondents
and
The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the Attorney General for Alberta and the Canadian Environmental Law Association Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. Ellis‑Don Ltd.
File No.: 22297.
1992: March 31.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Presumption of innocence ‑‑ Reverse onus provision ‑‑ Statutory defence and common law defence of due diligence to be established by accused on balance of probabilities ‑‑ Restriction on presumption of innocence justifiable ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 11(d) ‑‑ Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 321, s. 37(1), (2).
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., 1991 CanLII 39 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1990), 1990 CanLII 6968 (ON CA), 1 O.R. (3d) 193, 42 O.A.C. 49, 76 D.L.R. (4th) 347, 61 C.C.C. (3d) 423, 2 C.R. (4th) 118, 5 C.R.R. (2d) 263, allowing the appeal by the accused from a judgment of the District Court dismissing their appeal from convictions under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. Appeal allowed.
W. J. Blacklock, Phil Tunley and Andrea Esson, for the appellant.
Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., and Kirk F. Stevens, for the respondents.
Michael R. Dambrot, Q.C., and Robert J. Frater, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Monique Rousseau and Gilles Laporte, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
Marva J. Smith, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.
James C. Robb, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.
Stephen T. Goudge and Barbara Rutherford, for the intervener the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
//Lamer C.J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that this appeal must succeed. The existence of a restriction to s. 11(d) is governed by this Court's decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., 1991 CanLII 39 (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154. The s. 1 analysis in Wholesale is applicable here, as there is no difference of substance between the nature of the legislation in that case and this one.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the Court of Appeal for disposal of the other grounds of appeal raised below and not dealt with by the Court of Appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents: Lerner & Associates, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Gilles Laporte and Monique Rousseau, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: The Department of Justice, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta: James C. Robb, Edmonton.
Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Environmental Law Association: Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto; Barbara Rutherford, Toronto.
