Canada Case Law

R. v. Davina

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The judge found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately selected and used a heavy 18-inch crescent wrench to strike the victim multiple times with force sufficient to cause death; the evidence did not establish advanced intoxication negating capacity and there was no air of reality to provocation; accordingly the accused had the specific intent required under s.229(a)(ii) and was guilty of second-degree murder.

Source excerpt

• Mens rea
• Second-degree murder (s.229(a)(ii))
• Intoxication defence
• Provocation (s.232)
• Cumulative/rolled-up effect

Read case analysis

R. v. Alas

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada restored a second-degree murder conviction, holding there was no air of reality to the defence of provocation.

• Provocation
• Air of reality
• Second degree murder
• Homicide
• Air-of-reality
• Second-degree-murder

Read case analysis

R. v. Blanchard

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada restored Kathleen Blanchard’s acquittal, holding the Quebec Court of Appeal erred by deciding a defence the Crown had conceded.

• Extreme intoxication akin to automatism
• Automatism
• Refusal to provide breath sample
• Acquittal
• Judicial restraint
• Extreme-intoxication

Read case analysis

R. v. Alphonse

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held there was no air of reality to provocation, but self-defence had an air of reality and would be left to the jury in this murder trial.

• Provocation
• Self-defence
• Air of reality
• Jury instructions
• Publication ban
• Air-of-reality

Read case analysis

R. v. Rose

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused operated his vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit and that his operation was a marked departure amounting to dangerous driving causing bodily harm; the defence of necessity failed because there was no virtually certain imminent peril, reasonable alternatives existed, and the harm caused was disproportionate, and self‑defence had no air of reality; accordingly convictions were entered on dangerous driving and the over‑limit offence and a conditional stay entered on the impa…

Source excerpt

• Dangerous driving causing bodily harm
• Impaired driving causing bodily harm
• Operation over legal blood alcohol limit
• Necessity defence
• Self-defence
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

R. v. Griffith

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Oral reasons in a British Columbia criminal trial finding the accused guilty of criminal negligence causing death and failure to stop after an accident.

• Criminal negligence causing death
• Dangerous driving causing death (included offence)
• Failure to stop at scene of an accident (hit and run)
• Necessity
• Self-defence
• Mens rea

Read case analysis

R. v. Elton

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Elton’s appeal from his second degree murder conviction, holding any error about mistake of fact was harmless because he intended to cause death.

• Mistake of fact
• Aiding suicide
• Mens rea
• Culpable homicide
• Actus reus
• Mistake-of-fact

Read case analysis

R. v. Constantine

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not err: there was no air of reality to the proportionality element of former s.37 on the evidence so the trial judge properly declined to instruct the jury on defence of a third party, and the trial judge's re-charge adequately and comprehensively addressed the mens rea component of the jury's question; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Defence of a third party (former s.37)
• Self-defence (former s.34(2))
• Air of reality test
• Mens rea for murder
• Jury questions and re-charge

Read case analysis

R. v. Delos Santos

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held there was an air of reality to a duress defence in a trafficking case involving fraudulent Oxycontin prescriptions, so the defence was left to the jury.

• Duress defence
• Air of reality test
• Modified objective standard
• Safe avenue of escape
• S.5(1) cdsa trafficking
• Duress-defence

Read case analysis

R. v. Pleau

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

On a modified objective standard the judge found the accused faced an objectively credible imminent medical peril, had no reasonable legal alternative given the circumstances (locked out, no phone, lack of medical skill, time pressure) and the harm avoided outweighed or was comparable to the harm inflicted by impaired driving, therefore the defence of necessity applied and the accused was acquitted.

Source excerpt

• Necessity
• Impaired driving
• Modified objective test
• Proportionality

Read case analysis