Analytic Structure: Canadian Case Law
I. Definition: Criminality ("Offense")
Does the behavior constitute criminal conduct? (was a (penal) law violated?)
A. in general: Does the penal code apply (jurisdiction)?
B. in particular: Does the behavior meet the definition of a particular criminal offense defined in the penal
code?
1. What are the elements of the offense as defined?
(a) Actus Reus
(i) Conduct
- required ("(voluntary) act requirement") (Shaw)
(ii) Circumstances
- may be required (Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society)
- e.g. nature of offender (public servant) or of victim (rent regulated tenant), legality, time,
place, (absence of) consent, justification
(iii) Result
- not required (e.g. inchoate offences: Deutsch); only in result offenses (e.g. homicide: Smithers)
(b) Mens Rea: Mode of Culpability, Mental State (w/ respect to each element)
- may be required (City of Sault Ste. Marie, Motor Vehicle Act Reference)
- rules of interpretation (e.g. one for all rule: Buzzanga)
- e.g. intent(ion), purpose, knowledge, willful blindness, recklessness, criminal negligence (due diligence defence avlb),
willfulness. (see comparative chart)
2. Does the behavior satisfy each element of the offense?
(a) Conduct
- act (Davis)
- voluntariness (Ronnie L, Larsonneur)
- omission (Browne, Miller)
- imputation/derivative liability (Dunlop & Sylvester)
- instruments
- complicity (Dunlop & Sylvester, Briscoe)
- corporate actors (Canadian Dredge, Waterloo Mercury)
(b) Circumstances (e.g. (absence of) consent: Pappajohn, Sansregret, Jobidon; nature of victim: Vlcko)
(c) Result
- causation:
- factual/legal (Smithers, Nette)
(d) Mode of Culpability (w/ respect to each element)
(i) mistake "of fact" (i.e. as to satisfaction of offense element (impossibility (w/respect to circumstance); Dynar)
(ii) intoxication (Daviault, CCC s.33.1)
(iii) diminished capacity (More, Wright)
II. Justification: Illegality/Unlawfulness/Wrongness ("Defense")
Is the criminal conduct unlawful generally speaking? (was the law violated?)
A. in general (nature of justification; justification vs. excuse)
B. specific defenses
1. law administration and enforcement (Brennan)
2. authority (Cdn Foundation for Children, Youth & The Law)
3. defense (self; another; property) (Lavallee, McIntosh; Webers; Baxter)
[4. consent (cf. s.14 (no consent to death)) (Jobidon, Cuerrier, Ewanchuk)
[5. necessity (circumstancial duress) (Dudley & Stephens, Perka, Latimer)
C. reasonable mistake re: satisfaction of justification element (self defence: Pétel, Faid)
III. Excuse: Inculpation/Responsibility/Accountability/Blameworthiness ("Defense")
Can the accused be held culpable for the facially criminal conduct?
A. Did the accused lack the capacity for conduct (incapacity)?
1. insanity (s.16) (Cooper, Abbey, Chaulk)
- (exculpatory) intoxication (not available; but see I. (intoxication))
2. infancy (s.13) (Sawchuk)
B. Was the accused incapable of exercising his capacity for culpable conduct? (inability/impossibility/unavoidability)
1. duress
(a) personal (s.17) (Ruzic, Hibbert)
(b) circumstantial (see necessity)
2. provocation (homicide only) (Hill, Thibert)
3. superior orders (s. 32(2))
4. entrapment (Barnes, Mack)
5. abandonment
- complicity (Ball)
- inchoate crimes (Gonzague (counselling))
6. mistake (ignorance) "of law" (s.19)
(a) reliance on official misstatement (Tétreault)
(b) unreasonable mistake re: satisfaction of justification element