R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Hearing: February 18, 1991 Judgment: October 24, 1991 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer |
|||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
|
Majority by: Cory J. |
|||||||||
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, 1991 SCC 85 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the distinction between "true crime" and regulatory offences.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Wholesale Travel sold vacation packages which it advertised as being at "wholesale prices" when, in fact, they were not wholesale prices at all. The company was charged with five counts of false or misleading advertising contrary to s. 36(1)(a) [now s.52(1)(a)] of the federal Competition Act. The charge was a hybrid offence that could be either an indictment consisting of a fine and prison term under 5 years, or a summary conviction consisting of a fine and a prison term under a year.
At trial, the judge held that ss. 36 and 37.3, which allowed for a due diligence defence, were in violation of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Crown's appeal for a dismissal was allowed and the case was resubmitted for trial. At appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the order for a trial. The accused applied to the Supreme Court of Canada and was rejected the first time but was accepted on a second appeal.
The issue before the Court was whether s. 37.3(2) of the Competition Act violated s. 7 of the Charter (which safeguards the "security of the person").
[edit] Ruling
The Court unanimously held that offences for which the mens rea component is negligence do not violate s. 7 of the Charter when a due diligence defence (s. 37.3(2)(a) and (b)) is available, but that the "timely retraction" provisions of s. 37.3(2)(c) and (d) did infringe s. 7 and could not be saved under s.1.
The Court however was divided on whether a reversal of onus onto the accused in s. 37.3(2) was constitutional. The majority (Lamer with LaForest, Sopinka, Gothier, McLauglin, Stevenson, and Iacobucci) held that the reverse onus infringed s.11(d) of the Charter. However, only four of the seven held that it could not be saved under s. 1.
[edit] Comment
Note that the counsel for Wholesale Travel Group Inc. was led by Ian Binnie who would be promoted to the Supreme Court a few years later.
