Duty of Care: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Text replacement - "".<r" to "."<r" |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
# duty to safeguard excavation sites (263(2)) | # duty to safeguard excavation sites (263(2)) | ||
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" | 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> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Gosset|1fs0c|1993 CanLII 62 (SCC)|[1993] 3 SCR 76}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}} | {{CanLIIRP|Gosset|1fs0c|1993 CanLII 62 (SCC)|[1993] 3 SCR 76}}{{perSCC|McLachlin J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
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}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atp|887}} (SCR)</ref> | 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}}{{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" | 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> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Beatty|1vrp5|2008 SCC 5 (CanLII)|[2008] 1 SCR 49}}{{perSCC|Charron J}} </ref> | {{CanLIIRP|Beatty|1vrp5|2008 SCC 5 (CanLII)|[2008] 1 SCR 49}}{{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> | The assessment, then, is of a "reasonably prudent person in the circumstances" the accused found himself when the events occurred.<ref> | ||
Revision as of 14:01, 11 January 2023
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2014. (Rev. # 82342) |
- < Criminal Law
- < Proof of Elements
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:
- breach of duty towards explosives (80)
- unsafe storage of a firearm (86)
- criminal negligence (219)
- dangerous operation of a motor vehicle (249)
- failing to provide necessities of life (215)
- duty to safeguard opening in ice (263(1))
- duty to safeguard excavation sites (263(2))
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."[1]
See also s. 430(5.1) concerning breach of duty causing danger to life or mischief to property.
- ↑ R v Gosset, 1993 CanLII 62 (SCC), [1993] 3 SCR 76, per McLachlin J
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.[1]
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."[2] The assessment, then, is of a "reasonably prudent person in the circumstances" the accused found himself when the events occurred.[3]
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.[4]
- ↑ see R v Hundal, 1993 CanLII 120 (SCC), [1993] 1 SCR 867, per Cory J, at p. 887 (SCR)
- ↑ R v Beatty, 2008 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 49, per Charron J
- ↑ Beatty, ibid., at para 40
- ↑ R v Tayfel (M), 2009 MBCA 124 (CanLII), 250 CCC (3d) 219, per Hamilton JA, at para 51