Majority
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Lamer C.J.
Lamer C.J. -- This appeal comes to us as of right. We agree with the Court of Appeal of British Columbia that the wording of the sections [ss. 5(1) and 29 of the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27] is open to interpretation and does not explicitly exclude a defence of due diligence. We agree that given the penalties, this is not an offence that could, without offending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , be one of absolute liability.
On the presumption that Parliament intends its legislation to conform to the exigencies of the Charter , we are of the view that the section [s. 5(1) of the Act] is one of strict liability and that a defence of due diligence is available to the accused. The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: Sheldon Goldberg, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent: J.C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener: George Thomson, Toronto.