R. v. Fredericks

R. v. Fredericks

The Crown failed to prove causation and the representation element beyond a reasonable doubt because key facts were unproven or indeterminate—no credible evidence that the accused’s pill was ingested by the deceased or was the source of the toxicologically significant hydromorphone level, and no evidence the accused held out the substance as hydromorphone—therefore the accused must be acquitted of both criminal negligence and s.5(1) CDSA charges.

Citation
2013 NSPC 11
Parties
Crown (provincial): Her Majesty the Queen (Provincial Crown); Crown (federal): Her Majesty the Queen (Federal Crown); Accused/defendant: Kyle David James Fredericks
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Accused acquitted on all charges
Legal Topics
Criminal Negligence, Causation, Mens Rea (objective Vs Subjective), Trafficking by Holding Out, Voluntariness of Police Statements, Witness Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Homicide Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Evidence Forensic Toxicology Criminal Negligence Causation Mens Rea (objective Vs Subjective) +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen (Provincial Crown)

Crown (provincial)

Her Majesty the Queen (Federal Crown)

Crown (federal)

Kyle David James Fredericks

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused give or sell Dilaudid/hydromorphone to the deceased?
  2. 2 Did the accused’s conduct cause or significantly contribute to the death (causation)?
  3. 3 Has the Crown proven the fault element for criminal negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove causation and the representation element beyond a reasonable doubt because key facts were unproven or indeterminate—no credible evidence that the accused’s pill was ingested by the deceased or was the source of the toxicologically significant hydromorphone level, and no evidence the accused held out the substance as hydromorphone—therefore the accused must be acquitted of both criminal negligence and s.5(1) CDSA charges.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted on all charges

Orders

  • Acquitted of criminal negligence contrary to s.220 Criminal Code
  • Acquitted of trafficking by holding out contrary to s.5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act