The defendants pleaded guilty to possession of unmarked cigarettes under the Tobacco Tax Act.
The Crown argued that the penalty provisions in s. 29(14) established a maximum fine, allowing for judicial discretion in sentencing.
The court rejected this argument, applying the reasoning from R. v. Winlow to find that the phrase 'is liable to' establishes a fixed statutory fine.
The court concluded it had no discretion to impose a penalty other than the exact calculation set out in the statute.
