Iacobucci J.
Iacobucci J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that this appeal should be allowed. With respect to the handling by the trial judge of the requests made by the jury for a copy of the transcript of the evidence of Robert David and for a copy of the applicable section of the Criminal Code , we agree substantially with the dissenting reasons of Foisy J.A. in the Alberta Court of Appeal.
With respect to the argument that the reverse onus contained in s. 319(3) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46 , contravenes s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , we are of the opinion that the decision of the Court in R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, is a complete answer. In that decision, the Court concluded that, although s. 319(3)(a) was inconsistent with s. 11(d) of the Charter , it was justified as a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1. The decision of the Court in R. v. Laba, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 965, is distinguishable from the case at bar.
With respect to the other arguments raised by the respondent in support of the Court of Appeal's decision, we reject these arguments as they are without merit. Specifically, the argument for a stay because of delay cannot be raised since it is a remedy that does not support the order of the Court of Appeal directing a new trial. The trial judge made no error in charging the jury with respect to the various elements contained in s. 319 of the Code. Notwithstanding any delay in disclosure of the evidence of Dr. Segal, we agree with the trial judge that there was no prejudice in the circumstances.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the cross‑appeal is dismissed, the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal is set aside, and the conviction is restored, and the matter is remitted to the Court of Appeal so that the accused's sentence appeal can be disposed of.
We would answer the constitutional questions (paraphrased) as follows:
Cases cited
- R. v. Keegstra 21118-1990-12-13 ¶ 2
- R. v. Laba 23217-1994-12-08 ¶ 2