X hits on this document





2 / 50


Notions of fault18

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie [1978] Strict liability between absolute and mens rea18

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. [1991] Focus not on moral turpitude, regulatory18

R. v. Chapin [1979] Strict liability offence – accused can show due diligence19

Intention and knowledge19

R. v. Steane [1947] Steane collaborated with Nazis under threats.19

R. v. Hibbert [1995] Purpose = intention, not desire19

R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher [1979] Intention to create furor not promote hatred20

R. v. Chapin [1979] Ignore this, repeated by mistake.20

R. v. Docherty [1989] Where knowledge = mens rea, no knowledge = defence20

R. v. Théroux [1993] Mens rea of fraud outlined here20

Recklessness and wilful blindness21

Sansregret v. R. [1985] The difference between recklessness and wilful blindness21

R. v. Currie (1975) Wilful blindness only where accused should’ve  pursued inquiry 21

R. v. Blondin (1971) Jury should’ve deliberated on recklessness or wilful blindness22

R. v. Sandhu (1989) Recklessness has both subjective and objective elements.22

R. v. Duong (1998) Wilfully blind to risk of harbouring a murderer23

R. v. Parker [1977] English test for recklessness seems exclusively objective.23

R. v. Caldwell [1981] And, English seem to conflate recklessness with wilful blindness23


R. v. Tutton and Tutton [1989] S.C.C. split over what test for criminal negligence24

Waite v. R. [1989] Subjective element of crim. negl. not deliberate assumption of risk24

R. v. Anderson (1990) Reasonable doubt that conduct was criminal negligence25

Marked Departure Test25

R. v. Creighton [1993] Negligence in criminal matters requires marked departure25

Constructive liability26

R. v. Desousa [1992] Underlying offences can’t be of absolute liability to qualify26

R. v. Creighton [1994] (revisited) Only need foreseeability of harm for manslaughter26

R. v. Krushel (2000) Criminal harassment: actus reus sufficiently blameworthy27

R. v. Barron (1984) Reversed by C.A.: how would Creighton have changed result?27

Motor Vehicle Reference (1986) Substantive review ok, no prison for absolute liabil. 28

R. v. Cancoil …. (1986) Treat provision as strict liability, due diligence available28

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group [1991] Need heavier burden on accused in strict liabil.28

Simpson v. R. (1981) Subjective knowledge is minimum standard for murder29

Vaillancourt v. R. [1987] Constructive murder violates the Charter.29

R. v. Martineau [1990] Murder = subjective foresight of death beyond reasonable dbt.30

Sexual assault30

Pappajohn v. R. [1980] Honest though mistaken belief voids mens rea30

Sansregret v. R. [1985] Wilful blindness to the risk that fear vitiated consent31

R. v. Chase [1987] Sexual assault: is sexual context visible to reasonable observer?31

R. v. Darrach [2000] Rape shield probisions in Code upheld32

R. v. Ewanchuk [1999] Implied consent not recognized for sexual assault32

Extensions of guilt33


R. v. Kulbacki [1966] Accused had authority to tell girl to drive safely33


Document info
Document views73
Page views73
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 20:35:09 UTC 2016