Causation: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z]+)," to "''$1'',"
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1"
 
(33 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[fr:Causalité]]
{{Currency2|January|2015}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderElements}}
{{HeaderElements}}
==General Principles==
==General Principles==
<!-- -->
Certain offences in the Criminal Code require not only that the offender do a prohibited act along with the requisite mens rea, but also that the act caused a particular result.  
Certain offences in the Criminal Code require not only that the offender do a prohibited act along with the requisite mens rea, but also that the act caused a particular result.  
Criminal responsibility for causation must be established in fact and in law.<Ref>  
Criminal responsibility for causation must be established in fact and in law.<ref>  
R v Nette, [http://canlii.ca/t/51x9 2001 SCC 78] (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 488{{perSCC|Arbour J}}, at para 44
{{CanLIIRP|Nette|51x9|2001 SCC 78 (CanLII)|[2001] 3 SCR 488}}{{perSCC-H|Arbour J}}{{atL|51x9|44}}
</ref>  
</ref>  
This makes a distinction between the physical, biological, or medical cause a particular result and the legal boundary that would attribute responsibility to the accused for the result.  
This makes a distinction between the physical, biological, or medical cause a particular result and the legal boundary that would attribute responsibility to the accused for the result.  


The standard to prove causation is the same as between all homicide offences, including murder, manslaughter, operation of a motor vehicle causing death.<ref>''R v KL'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22h4n 2009 ONCA 141] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}} at para 17</reF> Likewise, the standard applies equally to offences involving bodily harm.
The standard to prove causation is the same as between all homicide offences, including murder, manslaughter, operation of a motor vehicle causing death.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|KL|22h4n|2009 ONCA 141 (CanLII)|248 OAC 260}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|22h4n|17}}</ref>  
Likewise, the standard applies equally to offences involving bodily harm.


The criminal standard of causation in criminal matters is that the "accused's  conduct be at least a contributing cause of the [result], outside the de minimis range"<ref>
The criminal standard of causation in criminal matters is that the "accused's  conduct be at least a contributing cause of the [result], outside the de minimis range"<ref>
KL{{supra}} at para 17 citing: <br>
{{supra1|KL}}{{atL|22h4n|17}} citing: <br>
R v Smithers, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mk9r 1977 CanLII 7] (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 506{{perSCC|Dickson J}} at p. 519<br>  
{{CanLIIRP|Smithers|1mk9r|1977 CanLII 7 (SCC)|[1978] 1 SCR 506}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}}{{atp|519}}<br>  
R v Nette, [http://canlii.ca/t/51x9 2001 SCC 78] (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 488{{perSCC|Arbour J}} at paras 71 and 72<br>
{{supra1|Nette}}{{atsL|51x9|71| and 72}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Criminal law does not include any issues of contributory negligence nor does it apportion responsibility for harm caused outside of sentencing.<Ref>Nette{{supra}} at para 49<br>
Criminal law does not include any issues of contributory negligence nor does it apportion responsibility for harm caused outside of sentencing.<ref>
KL{{supra}} at para 18</ref>  
{{supra1|Nette}}{{atL|51x9|49}}<br>
{{supra1|KL}}{{atL|22h4n|18}}</ref>  


The inference of foreseeability can be rebutted with evidence of intoxication.<Ref>
The inference of foreseeability can be rebutted with evidence of intoxication.<ref>
R v Seymour, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fr9z 1996 CanLII 201], [1996] 2 SCR 252{{perSCC|Cory J}} at para 23<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Seymour|1fr9z|1996 CanLII 201|[1996] 2 SCR 252}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fr9z|23}}<br>
See R v Daley, [http://canlii.ca/t/1v5dr 2007 SCC 53] (CanLII), [2007] 3 SCR 523{{perSCC|Bastarache J}} for details on the law of intoxication<br>
See {{CanLIIRP|Daley|1v5dr|2007 SCC 53 (CanLII)|[2007] 3 SCR 523}}{{perSCC-H|Bastarache J}} for details on the law of intoxication<br>
</ref>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 31: Line 34:
* [[Homicide (Offence)|Homicide]] (Murder and Manslaughter)
* [[Homicide (Offence)|Homicide]] (Murder and Manslaughter)
* [[Attempted Murder (Offence)|Attempt Murder]]  
* [[Attempted Murder (Offence)|Attempt Murder]]  
* [[Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm (Offence)|Assault causing bodily harm]] (267)
* [[Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm (Offence)|Assault Causing Bodily Harm]] (267)
* [[Aggravated Assault (Offence)|Aggravated Assault]] (268)
* [[Aggravated Assault (Offence)|Aggravated Assault]] (268)
* [[Sexual Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm (Offence)|Sexual Assault causing bodily harm]]
* [[Sexual Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm (Offence)|Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm]]
* [[Aggravated Sexual Assault (Offence)|Aggravated Sexual Assault]]
* [[Aggravated Sexual Assault (Offence)|Aggravated Sexual Assault]]
* [[Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle (Offence)|Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm]]
* [[Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle (Offence)|Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm]]
Line 42: Line 45:
==Causation by Offence==
==Causation by Offence==
A person who intentionally stabs another person will generally be considered to have intended to cause bodily harm.<ref>
A person who intentionally stabs another person will generally be considered to have intended to cause bodily harm.<ref>
R v Abbaya, [http://canlii.ca/t/5qt5 2000 ABPC 202] (CanLII){{perABPC|Allen J}} at para 76<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Abbaya|5qt5|2000 ABPC 202 (CanLII)|52 WCB (2d) 406}}{{perABPC|Allen J}}{{atL|5qt5|76}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 51: Line 54:
===Accident===
===Accident===
A panic response to circumstances may render an act involuntary.<ref>
A panic response to circumstances may render an act involuntary.<ref>
R v Leinen, [http://canlii.ca/t/g01l8 2013 ABCA 283] (CanLII){{perABCA|Hunt JA}} at para 117<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leinen|g01l8|2013 ABCA 283 (CanLII)|301 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perABCA|Hunt JA}}{{atL|g01l8|117}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


Line 57: Line 60:


==Case Digests==
==Case Digests==
* R v Kippax, [http://canlii.ca/t/fp7n6 2011 ONCA 766] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}} at 21-28
* {{CanLIIRP|Kippax|fp7n6|2011 ONCA 766 (CanLII)|286 OAC 144}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atsL|fp7n6|21| to 28}}


==See Also==
==See Also==
* [[Parties to an Offence]]
* [[Parties to an Offence]]

Latest revision as of 14:28, 14 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2015. (Rev. # 95454)

General Principles

Certain offences in the Criminal Code require not only that the offender do a prohibited act along with the requisite mens rea, but also that the act caused a particular result. Criminal responsibility for causation must be established in fact and in law.[1] This makes a distinction between the physical, biological, or medical cause a particular result and the legal boundary that would attribute responsibility to the accused for the result.

The standard to prove causation is the same as between all homicide offences, including murder, manslaughter, operation of a motor vehicle causing death.[2] Likewise, the standard applies equally to offences involving bodily harm.

The criminal standard of causation in criminal matters is that the "accused's conduct be at least a contributing cause of the [result], outside the de minimis range"[3]

Criminal law does not include any issues of contributory negligence nor does it apportion responsibility for harm caused outside of sentencing.[4]

The inference of foreseeability can be rebutted with evidence of intoxication.[5]

  1. R v Nette, 2001 SCC 78 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 488, per Arbour J, at para 44
  2. R v KL, 2009 ONCA 141 (CanLII), 248 OAC 260, per Watt JA, at para 17
  3. KL, supra, at para 17 citing:
    R v Smithers, 1977 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 506, per Dickson J, at p. 519
    Nette, supra, at paras 71 and 72
  4. Nette, supra, at para 49
    KL, supra, at para 18
  5. R v Seymour, 1996 CanLII 201, [1996] 2 SCR 252, per Cory J, at para 23
    See R v Daley, 2007 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2007] 3 SCR 523, per Bastarache J for details on the law of intoxication

Offences where causation is an essential element

Causation by Offence

A person who intentionally stabs another person will generally be considered to have intended to cause bodily harm.[1]

  1. R v Abbaya, 2000 ABPC 202 (CanLII), 52 WCB (2d) 406, per Allen J, at para 76

Homicide

Accident

A panic response to circumstances may render an act involuntary.[1]

  1. R v Leinen, 2013 ABCA 283 (CanLII), 301 CCC (3d) 1, per Hunt JA, at para 117

Case Digests

See Also