W charged with false mislead advertising. Act sets forth defence of due diligence, but s.37.3(b) says that you can be convicted anyways is you become aware of X and don’t do what is reasonable to bring it to attention of public = no defence of due diligence
Proof of negligence or allowing a due diligence defence is sufficient to comply with s.7.
Strict liability that has the possibility of imprisonment does not violate the Charter if a due diligence defence is provided to the accused.
Justification for Differential Treatment
***License implies they accepted the risk
***Regulatory legislation is essential to the operation of industrial society.
PFJ’s do not require proof of full MR for regulatory or negligence offences. s.11(d) – strict liability do no violate the presumption of innocence
Strict liability that has potential of imprisonment does not violate s.7