Criminal Law Study Notes - Week 1

When there is uncertainty about the interpretation of a law, prioritize the interpretation that aligns with the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If a law can be interpreted in multiple ways, choose the interpretation that is most favorable to the person accused of a crime.

The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused does not need to prove their innocence.

Direct and physical possession of an item. Requires knowledge, consent, and control of the item.

Possession of an item without physically holding it, but with knowledge and a measure of indirect control over it.

Possession of an item shared with others, requiring knowledge, consent, and some degree of control.

Failure to act can be considered a criminal offense if there is a legal duty to act.

Voluntary conduct is essential for criminal liability, the act must be the result of a willing mind.

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was voluntary.

If the act is not the result of a voluntary choice, there can be no actus reus, leading to an acquittal.

The connection between an action and its consequences. It must be established in both fact and law.

Examines whether an action was a physical cause of the result. Often answered by the "but for" test.

A test to determine factual causation: "but for" the accused's actions, would the result have occurred?

Considers whether it's fair to hold the accused legally responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Test for legal causation in all homicides EXCEPT first-degree murder (Smithers/Nette). The accused's actions must be a significant contributing factor to the result.

Test for legal causation in first-degree murder cases (Harbottle/Nette). The accused's actions must be an essential, substantial, and integral cause of the result.

Events that occur after the accused's actions that might affect the chain of causation.

Analyzes whether an intervening event was reasonably foreseeable by the accused.

Analyzes whether an intervening event was intentional and independent of the accused's actions.

These tests are helpful for understanding legal causation, but they are not the sole determinants of responsibility.

A type of offense with less serious consequences, punishable by a maximum fine of $5000 and/or two years in jail. There's also a 12-month limitation period for prosecution.

Legislation that criminalizes behavior must have a valid reason, prohibit the behavior, and impose a penalty. Think of it as the trifecta of criminal law.

A type of offense with more serious consequences, carrying penalties ranging from two years to life imprisonment. If the maximum penalty isn't specified, a default of five years applies. Unlike summary offenses, there is no limitation period.

A type of offense that can be classified as either summary or indictable, depending on the specific circumstances. Examples include assault, indecent acts, and breach of release orders.

A set of rules that govern the way legal disputes are resolved in court. The judge acts as the impartial fact-finder, evaluating evidence from both the prosecution (crown) and the defense.

The principle of interpretation that emphasizes giving meaning to legislation by considering its overall context, grammatical structure, and the intent of Parliament.

The requirement for the prosecution (crown) to disclose evidence to the defense, ensuring fairness in the legal process.

A type of legal offense that is only recognized in the context of disobeying or disrespecting the authority of the court during legal proceedings. It originated in Common Law, and is a unique exception to the general trend of codifying criminal law in Canada.

A mental state where the accused deliberately wants a specific outcome from their actions.

When the accused avoids being aware of a risk because they don't want to know.

A mental state where the accused is aware of a significant risk but chooses to take it anyway.

The legal requirement for a crime to be proved, considering the accused's mental state.

A standard of conduct that a 'reasonable person' would follow in the same circumstances.

The legal test used to determine if an accused's conduct significantly deviated from what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

The accused must be able to prove they honestly believed their actions were not wrong.

Inferences made by the court based on the accused's actions or statements to determine their mental state.

The accused's belief that they were not doing anything wrong is not a valid defense.

A crime that is considered so serious that a prison sentence is always required.

A legal defense available only in murder cases, where if successful, reduces the charge to manslaughter. It requires proof of both objective and subjective elements by the defense.

This test, used in the provocation defense, evaluates the accused's conduct objectively, based on a reasonable person in their situation. It assesses whether the accused's reaction was proportionate to the provocation.

This aspect of the provocation defense considers the accused's individual state of mind and whether the provocation caused a sudden and unexpected reaction. It focuses on the accused's subjective experience and whether the provocation led to an immediate and uncontrolled response.

Intoxication can be used as a defense to specific intent crimes, but it is rarely successful. The level of intoxication must be significant enough to raise reasonable doubt about the accused's ability to form the necessary intent.

This level of intoxication negates voluntariness and can serve as a complete defense to criminal responsibility. However, it is extremely rare as it requires a high level of intoxication that completely abolishes the ability to act voluntarily.