View source for Duty of Care

{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderElements}}
==General Principles==
Certain criminal offences create a duty of care, where, if the standard of care is violated, will result in a criminal act. The offences that impose a duty of care include:
# [[Use or Possession of Explosives (Offence)|breach of duty towards explosives]] (80)
# [[Careless Use or Storage of a Firearm (Offence)|unsafe storage of a firearm]] (86)
# [[Criminal Negligence (Offence)|Criminal negligence]] (219)
# [[Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle (Offence)|dangerous operation of a motor vehicle]] (249)
# [[Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life (Offence)|failing to provide necessities of life]] (215)

Further, there are special duties of care. Persons who take care or control "inherently dangerous materials" that may cause serious injury or death have a "special duty of care".<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Gosset|1fs0c|1993 CanLII 62 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}}
</ref>

See also [[Mischief (Offence)|s. 430(5.1)]] concerning breach of duty causing danger to life or mischief to property.
{{reflist|2}}

==Standard of Care==
Any criminal duty of care requires a standard of care that includes, at a minimum, a "modified objective test" for ''mens rea''.<ref>see {{CanLIIRP|Hundal|1fs58|1993 CanLII 120 (SCC)|, [1993] 1 SCR 867 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atp|887}} (SCR)</ref>

For any offence where the standard of care involves objectively dangerous conduct, the conduct must be shown to be a "marked departure" from the norm. Wherein a "reasonable person in the position of the accused would have been aware of the risk" and "would not have undertaken the activity".<ref> 
{{CanLIIR|Beatty|1vrp5|2008 SCC 5 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Charron J}} </ref>
The assessment, then, is of a "reasonably prudent person in the circumstances" the accused found himself when the events occurred.<ref>
{{ibid1|Beatty}}{{atL|1vrp5|40}}</ref>

Thus, if the accused's actions show a marked departure from the standard of care described in the offence provision, he still cannot be convicted if a reasonably prudent person in the position of the accused would not have been aware of the risk or would not have been able to avoid the creating the risk.<ref>
''R v Tayfel (M)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/273wk 2009 MBCA 124] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Hamilton JA}}{{atL|273wk|51}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}