Canada Case Law

R. v. Mossman

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Sections 121(1) of the Environmental Management Act and 78.2 of the Fisheries Act do not displace the presumption of strict liability or require proof of subjective knowledge of the circumstances or activities constituting the corporation's actus reus; secondary liability requires proof of the corporation's commission of the offence and an actus reus component showing the accused's active or passive involvement (e.g. failure to prevent foreseeable harm) but not mens rea.

Source excerpt

• Secondary liability
• Strict liability
• Actus reus
• Acquiescence
• Due diligence
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. Fidgen

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Viewing the video and circumstances objectively, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally reached out and touched the complainant's buttocks and that the touching was done in a sexual manner, satisfying the elements of sexual interference (s.151) and sexual assault (s.271).

Source excerpt

• Sexual interference
• Sexual assault
• Mens rea
• Actus reus
• Publication ban
• Video surveillance

Read case analysis

R. v. B.F.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada restored B.F.’s attempted-murder conviction for her mother and upheld the convictions involving the child, finding no instructional error.

• Jury instructions
• Air of reality
• Actus reus
• Mens rea
• Aiding suicide
• Causation

Read case analysis

R. v. Kerr

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Demar Kerr’s conviction appeals, holding the jury charge properly separated dangerous driving’s actus reus from mens rea.

• Dangerous driving
• Mens rea
• Actus reus
• Jury instructions
• Bail breach
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. Rioux

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in a sexual assault case, holding that the trial judge erred by mishandling consent evidence and circumstantial evidence.

• Consent
• Capacity to consent
• Circumstantial evidence
• Actus reus
• Mens rea
• Crown appeal from acquittal

Read case analysis

R. v. Majcher

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Crown’s application to admit similar fact email evidence was dismissed because its modest probative value was outweighed by prejudice and propensity risk.

• Similar fact evidence
• Admissibility
• Propensity reasoning
• Inchoate offence
• Actus reus
• Mens rea

Read case analysis

R. v. Lernowich

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia acquitted Jarrett Joseph Lernowich of sexual assault, finding the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Actus reus
• Mens rea
• Consent
• Dna evidence
• Expert evidence
• Admissibility of sexual history

Read case analysis

R. v. McCrae

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court rejected NCRMD, found the accused criminally responsible, convicted him on aggravated assault, disarming a peace officer, and obstruction, and dismissed attempted murder and weapons-possession charges.

• Not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (ncrmd)
• Mens rea
• Actus reus
• Attempted murder
• Aggravated assault
• Disarming a peace officer

Read case analysis

R. v. Cavanaugh

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from criminal contempt convictions for breaching a Trans Mountain injunction, rejecting Indigenous-law, bias, disclosure, and actus reus arguments.

• Mens rea
• Colour of right
• Subpoenas
• Collateral attack on court orders
• Jurisdiction
• Injunction enforcement

Read case analysis

R. v. Robson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge found the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that detention was not necessary to secure public safety or to preserve public confidence; accordingly release pending appeal was justified. A partial stay of the driving prohibition was warranted because there is a genuine statutory interpretation issue concerning whether s.320.24(4) permits a prohibition broader than the specific conveyance (snowmobile), so the non‑snowmobile portion of the prohibition should be stayed pending appeal.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous driving causing death
• Actus reus
• Causation
• Expert evidence
• Driving prohibition
• Release pending appeal

Read case analysis