• Print
  • necessity accounts for 1 out of 736 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

R v Latimer, 2001 SCC 1

A. S.12 Analysis
** 1. Proportionality of sentence in relation to level of wrongdoing to the accused
*** a. Assessing consequences of offenders actions
*** b. Assessing context of offenders act
**** i. Context of offence (factual scenarios)
**** ii. Aggravating factors
**** iii. Mitigating factors
** 2. Consider purposes (principles) of sentencing
** When assessing the gravity of an offence you must look at the character of the offender and the consequences of the actions. If after taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors the sentence is not grossly disproportionate, then the sentence will not infringe on s.12 rights.

B. Three requirements for the defence of necessity:
** 1. It must be an urgent situation of clear an imminent peril or danger
*** Disaster imminent or harm unavoidable and near; It is not enough that the peril is foreseeable or likely - it must be on the verge of transpiring and virtually certain to occur.
**** This is a modified objective standard
** 2. There must be no reasonable legal alternative to disobeying/breaking the law
*** If there was a reasonable legal alternative to breaking the law, then there is no necessity.
**** This is a modified objective standard
** 3. There must be proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided
*** Where this can be quickly dismissed, it makes sense for a trial judge to do so and rule out the defence of necessity before considering the other requirements for necessity; but most situations fall into a grey area.
**** This is evaluated on an objective standard