• Print
  • Criminal Law accounts for 114 out of 711 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Poitras v R, [1974] SCR 649

Motive or desire is not relevant is determining the MR for the offence of aiding in trafficking – he just has to do something for the purpose of aiding the trafficking to be convicted (THE DISSENT IS LATER PICKED UP AS LAW NOT THIS)

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General of Canada, [1931] AC 310

Parliament has jurisdiction over criminal law in broad sense – it can define what is criminal conduct, based on what violated generally accepted norms of conduct in the era (broadens the power from Toronto Electric Commissioners v Snider)

R v Pétel, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 3

Past experience can be relevant when assessing whether someone is a serious threat to you or not.
**Can use subjective requirements to give meaning to imminence requirement.
The issue is not what an outsider would have reasonably perceived but what the accused reasonably perceived, given her situation and her experience.

R v A.A. et al, 2004 ONCJ 101

When you are present (know something is going on) but you do not take any positive steps to encourage the act then you will not be guilty

R v Barker, [1924] NZLR 865 at 874

An act done with the intent to commit a crime is not a criminal attempt unless it is of such a nature as to be in itself sufficient evidence of the criminal intent with which it is done.
Unequivocal act theory – what matters is have they taken steps that clearly indicated they were going to commit the offence.

R v Baxter (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 96 (Ont CA)

Either 34(1) or 34(2) can apply in situations where a victim has been killed or grievously wounded.

R v Beatty, 2008 SCC 5

A modified objective test for negligent driving is a marked departure, in the circumstances the accused knew at the time, not taking into account personal characteristics, unless incapacity to appreciate the risk.

A modified objective test is the appropriate test to determine the requisite mens rea for negligence based criminal offences

R v Biron, [1976] 2 SCR 56

Shouting at an officer amounting to disturbing the peace can give an officer grounds to arrest without warrant.

R v Bogue (1976), 30 CCC (2d) 403 168 (Ont Ca)

Objective-Subjective test for self-defence under 34(1) and 34(2): It is not a standard of a person standing outside the defence – one has to take into account the state of mind of the accused
**Not proportionality requirement for 34(2) but there is in 34(1)

R v Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13

In order to convict under s.21(1) for the MR the person must have the intent and knowledge (that the principal was going to carry out an unlawful act) - wilful blindness satisfies this

R v Buzzanga and Durocher. (1979), 49 CCC (2d) 369 (Ont. CA)

A person who is conscious or who foresees that a consequence is certain or substantially certain to result from an act which he does in order to achieve some other purpose, intends the consequence.

R v Campbell, [1972] 2 All E.R. 353

Ignorance of the law is not a defence (s.19) – it may be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
**One may be able to use a mistake of law defence if knowledge of the law is necessary for conviction

R v Carker, [1967] SCR 114

Duress is just an excuse – it does not negate MR

R v Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R 51

A search must be truly incidental to the arrest for it to be authorized by law.

R v Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815

Knowledge of the criminal aspect of the material is adequate to constitute of possession.