• Print
  • Criminal Law accounts for 114 out of 726 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

R v Cinous, 2002 SCC 29

Air of reality – whether there is evidence on record upon which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could acquit.
**Must be some evidence on all 3 elements of the defence of self-defence to give it to the jury
**Both a subjective and an objective elements (no a modified test)

R v City of Sault Ste-Marie [1978] 2 SCR 1299

Strict liability offences:
**Reverse onus – on D to prove due diligence (1st defence) – DUE DILIGENCE
***Standard: proof on a balance of probabilities
**2nd defence – I believed in a set of circumstances that if were true would make my act not illegal – MISTAKE OF FACT

R v Clayton, 2007 SCC 32, [2007] 2 SCR 725.

"Reasonably necessary to respond to the seriousness of the offence and the threat to the police’s and public’s safety" can be a justification to stop suspects without harder evidence or observations.

R v Cline (1956), 115 CCC 18 (Ont. CA)

Next Step Theory - If all the preparatory steps are taken and the next step is the commission of the offence that is sufficient to ground an attempt conviction

R v Colucci, (1965), 46 C.R. 256 (Ont. C.A.

It is not just sections in the code that clearly criminalize omissions – using statutory interpretation, the courts may sometime make an omission criminal

R v Cooper, [1993] 1 SCR 146

The intent in order to convict under s.229(a)(ii):
1. There must be a subjective intent to cause bodily harm.
2. Subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is of such a nature that it is likely to result in death.

R v Cornejo (2003), 61 W.C.B.. (2d) 513 (Ont. C.A.)

s.273.2 – it is not a defence to a charge of sexual assault that the accused believed the complainant consented to the activity where; the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s self intoxication or recklessness or willful blindness or the accused did not take reasonable steps in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

Determination of reasonable steps is a matter of law to be determined by the trier of law.

R v Creighton, [1993] 3 SCR 3

The Standard for manslaughter is: Objective foresight of non-trivial bodily harm – use a modified objective standard, where you place reasonable person in the circumstance of the accused (not taking into account personal characteristics, but do take into account capacity issues).
**The offence of unlawful act manslaughter requires objective foreseeability of bodily harm which is neither trivial nor transitory, arising from a dangerous act

R v Darrach, [2000] 2 SCR. 443, 2000 SCC 46

s.273.2(b) does not infringe s.7 because it still allows for some defence of mistake of fact

R v Despins, [2007] S.J. No. 577

Defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent can’t be used if:
**Mere assertion by the accused is not sufficient;
**Must be evidence capable of explaining how accused could honestly have mistaken the complainants lack of consent as consent;
**Totality of the evidence must be considered, and;
**No air of reality if one of the bars mentioned in s.273.2 is present (accused’s belief arose from self-intoxication or recklessness or willful blindness, or if the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent in the circumstances)

If there is some evidence that would give an air of reality to the defence then the judge has to give that defence to the jury

R v Deutsch, [1986] 2 SCR. 2

Test for Attempts:
1. Need to look at relationship of the offence and the act
**a. Rewording of the unequivocal act theory
2. Proximity is relevant, taking into account time, location, and acts controlled by the accused that remain to be accomplished - What is important is the acts the accused took
**a. The fact that further acts are needed to complete the offence is not determinate of an attempt - Proximity is not determinative

R v Docherty, [1989] 2 SCR 941

Where knowledge of the law itself is a component of the requisite MR (an element of the offence), the absence of knowledge provides a good defence – so ignorance of the law can be a defence

R v Dudley and Stephens, (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC

Necessity is no defence against murder

R v Duong, 1998 CanLII 3585 (ON CA)

Where the Crown proves the existence of a fact in issue and knowledge of that fact is a component of the MR of the crime charged, willful blindness as to the existence of the fact is sufficient to establish a culpable state of mind

R v Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701

The requisite mental elements of a war crime or crime against humanity should be based on a subjective test