R. v. Knight (N.) et al., (1998) 129 Man.R.(2d) 135 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Monnin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 02, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1998), 129 Man.R.(2d) 135 (CA)

R. v. Knight (N.) (1998), 129 Man.R.(2d) 135 (CA);

    180 W.A.C. 135

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.028

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Neil Knight & PowerRich Corporation (accused/appellants)

(AR 97-30-03475)

Indexed As: R. v. Knight (N.) et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Monnin, JJ.A.

June 26, 1998.

Summary:

PowerRich Corporation and its president, Knight, were convicted of offences under s. 3 of the Fertilizers Act for failing to comply with prescribed labelling requirements. PowerRich and Knight appealed the convic­tions.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 122 Man.R.(2d) 30, dismissed the appeal. PowerRich and Knight appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Statutes - Topic 7102

Operation and effect - Consolidation and revision - Effect of - The Fertilizers Act as originally enacted provided that a product was a fertilizer if it contained either nitro­gen or phosphorus or potassium or some combination of those elements - When the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, were enacted, the definition of fertilizer in the English version remained unchanged, but the definition in the French version was altered so that a fertilizer was required to contain nitrogen, phosphorus and potas­sium, i.e., all three elements - The accused, who appealed their convictions for failing to comply with prescribed labelling re­quirements under the Act, relied on the definition in the French version of the Revised Statutes to argue that their product was not a fertilizer - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the Revised Statutes were to be construed as a consolidation of the law and not as new law and the sub­stance of the enactment could not be changed - The court was therefore required to return to the wording of the statute before the revision - The accused's appeal was dismissed.

Trade Regulation - Topic 6086

Manufacturers - Labelling and marking - When required - [See Statutes - Topic 7102 ].

Words and Phrases

Fertilizer - The Manitoba Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the word "fert­ilizer" as defined in s. 2 of the Fertilizers Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10.

Cases Noticed:

Shannon v. Canada (Attorney General) (1992), 151 N.R. 45 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Goodswimmer et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop­ment) et al. (1995), 180 N.R. 184 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Fertilizers Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-10, sect. 2 [para. 8].

Counsel:

H.J. Slobodzian, for the appellants;

R.P. Maertens, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 2, 1998, before Scott, C.J.M., Huband and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Huband, J.A., on June 26, 1998.