R. v. E.M.

R. v. E.M.

Court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abandoned his 11‑month‑old child and demonstrated subjective fault in the form of willful blindness, but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child's life was actually endangered as charged under s.218; acquittal required because an essential element (actual endangerment of life) was not proven.

Citation
2017 NSPC 35
Parties
Crown: The Queen; Accused: E. M.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Abandoning Child (s.218 Criminal Code) / Trial — Decision (provincial Court, July 17, 2017)
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
Abandonment of a Child, Endangerment of Life, Mens Rea (recklessness and Willful Blindness), Judicial Notice of Vehicle Heat Risks, Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Child Protection Evidence Medical Expert Evidence Abandonment of a Child Endangerment of Life Mens Rea (recklessness and Willful Blindness) Judicial Notice of Vehicle Heat Risks +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Crown

E. M.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Abandoning Child (s.218 Criminal Code) / Trial — Decision (provincial Court, July 17, 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused unlawfully abandoned his 11‑month‑old child within s.218 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved actual endangerment of the child's life as charged
  3. 3 What mental element (mens rea) s.218 requires and whether it was met

Ratio Decidendi

Court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abandoned his 11‑month‑old child and demonstrated subjective fault in the form of willful blindness, but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child's life was actually endangered as charged under s.218; acquittal required because an essential element (actual endangerment of life) was not proven.

Court Disposition

Not guilty