Criminal Law in Canada

A branch of Canadian law that identifies, deterrents, and punishes actions deemed morally wrong and deserving of criminal penalties.

The Constitution Act, 1867, gives Parliament the exclusive power to create and regulate criminal law in Canada.

To be valid, criminal laws must have a clear and legitimate goal, clearly define the prohibited conduct, and specify penalties for breaking the law.

This refers to the underlying reason for enacting a criminal law. It must address real societal issues like promoting public safety or protecting vulnerable groups.

Criminal laws must clearly state what specific actions are prohibited. The language must be unambiguous to avoid confusion and ensure fairness.

Sanctions are the consequences for breaking the law. These can be anything from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense.

This branch defines what constitutes crimes and their corresponding punishments. The Criminal Code is the primary source, but other statutes also play a role.

The Criminal Code serves as the primary source of substantive criminal law in Canada, outlining various offenses and their punishments.

A crime completed when two or more people agree to pursue an unlawful object, regardless of whether they actually carry out the plan. It's a 'preliminary' crime focused on preventing future harm.

Involves actions beyond mere preparation but falls short of completing the crime. It focuses on conduct close enough to the crime to justify criminal liability.

Acts that are too early in the crime process, like planning or gathering resources. These acts are considered too remote and don't meet the threshold for criminal liability.

Court ruling that acts preceding a conspiracy are too remote to be considered an attempt to commit the crime. It's about preventing the risk of future harm, not punishing actions that may not lead to anything.

The legal principle that criminal liability for a crime must be based on actions sufficiently close to the completed crime, not just mere planning.

Regulatory laws have distinct goals compared to criminal law. They focus on specific conduct regulation, often with less severe penalties than criminal law. Think of them as complementary systems.

Criminal law is aimed at prohibiting and punishing specific conduct deemed harmful to society, while regulatory law seeks to control or manage certain activities through rules and guidelines.

The Narcotic Control Act (NCA) prohibited marijuana possession. The court considered if this law infringed on the Charter of Rights (specifically, the right to liberty and security of the person) and if it was within Parliament's jurisdiction.

To be valid, criminal law must have a legitimate public purpose, like protecting society from harm, promoting public health, or maintaining order.

The court recognized that Parliament can act based on potential harm, even if the exact extent of the harm is unclear. This reflects the precautionary principle.

The principle of paramountcy in Canadian law states that when federal and provincial laws conflict, federal laws take precedence.

The federal criminal law power can be used to prohibit conduct, but it cannot be used solely to promote beneficial practices. This means laws aimed at promoting good things may fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Federal criminal law can have carve-outs for specific practices that Parliament does not wish to prohibit. These carve-outs are like exceptions to the general rule.

Parliament's use of the criminal law power doesn't require a clear, proven 'evil.' It's enough if the law aims to address a risk or potential harmful conduct.

The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act's aim was to prevent discrimination based on genetic characteristics. It was deemed a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power.

Aiding, abetting, and counselling are different ways of being involved in a crime. Whether you directly commit the crime or assist in some way, you can still be found guilty.

Even though a person may not have directly committed a crime, their involvement through aiding, abetting, or counselling can result in the same level of culpability as the principal offender.

The Supreme Court clarified that the prosecution does not need to prove the identity of the principal offenders, as their involvement is not the sole factor in determining guilt of those aiding or counselling the crime.

The Crown must establish that the accused encouraged or counselled the commission of the crime, regardless of whether the identity of the principal offenders is known.

An 'accessory after the fact' is someone who helps a person who has committed a crime escape or evade arrest. They are still guilty even though they did not participate in the original crime.