Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

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] 3 S.C.R. 154.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1990), 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] 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.

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.