Six men were charged under s. 394(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for selling or purchasing "any rock, mineral or other substance that contains precious metals unless he establishes that he is the owner or agent of the owner or is acting under lawful authority".

The six men challenged the reverse onus clause which required that the accused establish that he or she was acting under lawful authority as a violation of the presumption of innocence.

Justice Sopinka, writing for the Court, examined whether the provision criminalizing the trade in stolen precious metal ore could be justified under section 1 as the Crown had already conceded that it violated section 11(d).

Sopinka observed that there were a variety of situations where innocent people could be charged and convicted where they are unable to prove that their ore was legal.

Moreover, the purpose and history behind the provision was not sufficiently supported by facts or data that proved the trade in stolen precious metal ore was a pressing and substantial matter.