Reasonable Person Test: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
m Text replacement - "perSCC| " to "perSCC|"
Line 18: Line 18:
* dispassionate and fully apprised of the case<ref>
* dispassionate and fully apprised of the case<ref>
R v Collins, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftnd 1987 CanLII 84] (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Lamer J}}, at p. 282<br>
R v Collins, [http://canlii.ca/t/1ftnd 1987 CanLII 84] (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Lamer J}}, at p. 282<br>
R v Burlingham, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk6 1995 CanLII 88] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206 (S.C.C){{perSCC| Iacobucci J}}, at para 71<br>
R v Burlingham, [http://canlii.ca/t/1frk6 1995 CanLII 88] (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206 (S.C.C){{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}, at para 71<br>
</ref>
</ref>



Revision as of 16:25, 26 November 2018

General Principles

The "reasonable person test" is standard to be applied when considering a number of offences:

A reasonable person is one who is:

  • "reasonable, informed, practical and realistic" who "consider the matter in some detail"[1]
  • the person is not a "very sensitive or scrupulous" person, but is "right-minded"[2]
  • dispassionate and fully apprised of the case[3]
  1. R v RDS, 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 484 (S.C.C), per Cory J
  2. RDS, ibid.
  3. R v Collins, 1987 CanLII 84 (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 (S.C.C.), per Lamer J, at p. 282
    R v Burlingham, 1995 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 206 (S.C.C), per Iacobucci J, at para 71

Context-Based Reasonableness

There is a difference between "contextualizing" an objective standard and individualizing the standard to suit the accused.[1]

Diminished Intelligence
A diminished level of intelligence or diminished mental capacity can be taking into account in "the application of the reasonableness standard in criminal cases".[2]

  1. R v Tran, 2010 SCC 58 (CanLII), per Charron J at para 35
  2. R v Richter, 2014 BCCA 244 (CanLII), per Willcock JA, at para 43

See Also