Criminal Law Study Notes

The federal government, specifically Parliament, has the sole power to create and define criminal offences, including setting punishments. This is under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and was confirmed in R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13.

While Parliament creates criminal laws, provinces have the authority to manage aspects of criminal law, including investigating and prosecuting offences. This is under section 92(14) of the Constitution, allowing provinces to establish and manage their own court systems.

Before 1955, the common law was used to establish criminal offences. However, section 9 of the Criminal Code now prevents this, requiring all criminal offences to be defined by Canadian legislation.

The Criminal Code preserves some aspects of the English common law that were in place before 1955. However, these elements can only be used as long as they are not altered or modified by Canadian law.

Some defences to criminal charges are based on common law principles, even though the Criminal Code is the primary source of criminal law. These common law defences were generally accepted before 1955, and continue to be used.

Duress, a defence that argues a person was forced to commit a crime, is recognized both in the Criminal Code (section 17) and under common law principles. It serves as an example of how common law remains relevant in Canadian criminal law.

A legal principle that requires a strong justification before limiting a Charter right.

A legal concept used in Canada to limit Charter rights. It must be a demonstrably justified limit that is reasonable and necessary in a free and democratic society.

The burden of proof that the government must meet to justify a limit on a Charter right.

The legal test used by the courts to assess whether a law limits a Charter right in a way that is justifiable.

The legal standard used to determine if a law limits a Charter right in a way that is justifiable. It must be a demonstrably justified limit that is reasonable and necessary in a free and democratic society.

The fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Legal principles that establish if an activity is considered indecent or harmful based on Canadian societal standards.

A court case that struck down criminal offences related to prostitution, arguing that they violated Charter rights.

An Act of Parliament, encompassing both laws and regulations.

The process of creating, establishing, or issuing a law or regulation.

A legal document, either a complete Act of Parliament or a part of an Act or regulation.

A person who holds a position of authority within a government or organization.

A substance designed to create an explosion, including ingredients used to make explosives and devices used to trigger explosions.

An approach to legal interpretation that focuses on the intended purpose of a law, rather than just its literal wording.

The concept that the courts should interpret laws in a way that reflects their intended purpose, even if the wording is not completely clear.

A process of analyzing a law to understand its intended purpose and how it fits into the broader legal framework.

A method of interpretation where the plain, literal meaning of the words in a statute is prioritized, even if it leads to an absurd outcome.

An interpretation that avoids outcomes that are illogical, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the principles of fairness.

The principle that judges should interpret statutes in a way that avoids absurd or illogical outcomes, even if it means going beyond the literal meaning of the words.

The idea that the words of a statute should be understood in their overall context, considering the entire act, its purpose, and the intended legislative goals.

Applying the literal meaning of words in a statute, even if it results in an outcome that contradicts the legislative intent or creates an injustice.

A method of interpretation that considers the historical background, legislative debates, and other relevant sources to understand the purpose and intent behind a statute.

The principle that judges should interpret statutes in a way that is consistent with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

The specific act required to commit a crime. For example, in assault, the actus reus would be applying force.

The actus reus is often defined by the criminal code and can be very specific. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Determining the specific actus reus of a crime requires careful analysis of the law and the specific circumstances of the case.

The actus reus must be a voluntary act. For example, if someone is pushed into another person, this would not be a voluntary act and wouldn't meet the requirements of assault.

The actus reus must be a positive action, not a failure to act. There are exceptions, such as a legal duty to act in certain circumstances.

The actus reus needs to be proven to have caused the result of the crime. For example, if you punch someone and they fall, the actus reus is the punch causing the fall.

The actus reus and mens rea (intent) must occur at the same time. If someone intends to harm someone but doesn't actually harm them, the actus reus is missing.

Understanding the actus reus is a crucial first step in assessing a crime. It helps determine if the crime was committed by separating the action from the intention.

A criminal defence that excuses unlawful conduct when the accused was forced to act by threats of imminent harm to themselves or others.

The mental element required for a crime, indicating a person's knowledge and intention to commit the crime.

This defence can only be used when the accused's actions were the result of "immediate and unlawful threat of death or serious bodily harm" and there was no reasonable opportunity to escape.

The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to act illegally, not just that they knew their actions could have a negative consequence.

When the accused's intention is unclear, a court will consider all available evidence, including their own statements, to determine their state of mind.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. The accused must be aware of the law they are breaking. However, it is possible to be unaware of the specific details of the law but still intend to break it.

Even if the accused's actions were coerced, it does not necessarily excuse their wrongdoing. They can still be found guilty if they had a reasonable alternative available to them.