• Print
  • Criminal Law accounts for 114 out of 705 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

R. v. Proulx 2000 SCC 5

Criteria that a court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence:
**1. The offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.
**2. The court must impose a term of imprisonment of less then two years.
**3. The safety of the community would not endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and
**4. A conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss.718 to 718.2.

R. v. R.D.S. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484

Established the standard for determining whether a 'reasonable apprehension of bias' exists in the during the course of a trial ob behalf of the judge(s).

A high standard must be met before a finding of reasonable apprehension of bias can be made.

Testing Guideline: There is a reasonable apprehension of bias if an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through, would conclude that there is one.

R. v. Smith (Edward Dewey), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045

Mandatory minimum sentences, except for murder and high treason, should not be used.

S.12 of the Charter will only be infringed where the sentence is so unfit having regard to the offence and the offender as to be grossly disproportionate.

R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5

Elements of Actus Reus of Fraud (s.308(1)) : dishonest act and deprivation (Olan)
**Deprivation of money, security, or property (also imperiling of is sufficient)
***Established by proof of loss, prejudice, or risk of prejudice
**Dishonest act by:
***Other fraudulent means (Whether reasonable person thinks act is dishonest) – objective standard

Elements of Mens Rea of Fraud
**Accused knowingly undertook the act which constitutes the falsehood, deceit, or other fraudulent means (subjective knowledge of dishonest act), AND
**The accused was aware that the deprivation could result from such conduct (element of risk) (subjective knowledge of deprivation of another)

R. v. V. (K.B.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 857

If it can be concluded that the conduct was of a sexual nature that violated sexual integrity, then it will be considered to be a sexual assault

Sansregret v. R. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570

Where an accused is deliberately ignorant as a result of blinding himself to reality, the law presumes knowledge (willful blindness), and their belief in another state of facts is irrelevant.

Smithers v Her Majesty The Queen, [1978] 1 SCR 506

Test for legal Causation – Contributing cause beyond the de minimis range, they can be said to have legally caused to incident.

Even if death is unexpected and the physical reactions of the deceased unexpected, if the accused intended to do grievous bodily harm to the deceased, that could be enough to show causation

Stewart v The Queen (1988), 50 DLR (4th), 1 SCC.

Confidential information should not be, for policy reasons, considered as property by the Courts for the purposes of the law of theft.

Vaillancourt v Her Majesty The Queen, [1987] 2 SCR 636, 1987 SCC 78

RATIO FROM THIS CASE - It is a PFJ that before that before a person could be convicted of murder there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of at least objective foreseeability of death (BUT THIS IS NO LONGER LAW)

DISSENT FROM THIS CASE (THIS IS NOW LAW): It is a PFJ that a conviction for murder cannot rest on anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foresight.
**Crown must prove that the accused at least objectively foresaw that death would result