R. v. Naglik

R. v. Naglik

The Court held s.215(2)(a)(ii) is governed by an objective penal negligence standard — the Crown must prove objectively foreseeable circumstances and a marked departure from the standard of care — and that such objective liability does not violate s.7; however, the trial judge's answer to the jury's question created a real risk that jurors believed they were obliged to agree, constituting an instructional error requiring new trials; convictions were set aside and new trials ordered on both counts.

Citation
[1993] 3 SCR 122
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Christine Naglik; Respondent/appellant: Her Majesty The Queen; Co Accused: Peter Geoffrey Pople
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; convictions set aside and new trials ordered on both counts
Legal Topics
Mens Rea, Failure to Provide Necessaries, Jury Charge and Unanimity, Right to Silence, Section 215 Criminal Code, Charter S.7 Challenge
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Mens Rea Failure to Provide Necessaries Jury Charge and Unanimity Right to Silence Section 215 Criminal Code Charter S.7 Challenge

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Naglik

Appellant/respondent

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/appellant

Peter Geoffrey Pople

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.215 imposes an objective (penal negligence) standard of fault or requires subjective mens rea
  2. 2 Whether an objective standard for s.215 violates s.7 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's answer to the jury's question improperly undermined jurors' right to disagree and required a new trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held s.215(2)(a)(ii) is governed by an objective penal negligence standard — the Crown must prove objectively foreseeable circumstances and a marked departure from the standard of care — and that such objective liability does not violate s.7; however, the trial judge's answer to the jury's question created a real risk that jurors believed they were obliged to agree, constituting an instructional error requiring new trials; convictions were set aside and new trials ordered on both counts.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; convictions set aside and new trials ordered on both counts

Orders

  • Convictions set aside for Christine Naglik on both counts
  • New trial ordered on both counts for Christine Naglik