Causation: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "/ref> L" to "/ref> L" |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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}}{{ | ''R v Nette'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51x9 2001 SCC 78] (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 488{{perSCC|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> | 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}}{{ | ''R v KL'', [http://canlii.ca/t/22h4n 2009 ONCA 141] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|22h4n|17}}</ref> | ||
Likewise, the standard applies equally to offences involving bodily harm. | Likewise, the standard applies equally to offences involving bodily harm. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{supra1|KL}}{{at|17}} citing: <br> | {{supra1|KL}}{{at|17}} citing: <br> | ||
''R v Smithers'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mk9r 1977 CanLII 7] (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 506{{perSCC|Dickson J}}{{atp|519}}<br> | ''R v Smithers'', [http://canlii.ca/t/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}}{{ | ''R v Nette'', [http://canlii.ca/t/51x9 2001 SCC 78] (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 488{{perSCC|Arbour J}}{{atsL|51x9|71| and 72}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
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}}{{ | ''R v Seymour'', [http://canlii.ca/t/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 ''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> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 45: | 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}}{{ | ''R v Abbaya'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5qt5 2000 ABPC 202] (CanLII){{perABPC|Allen J}}{{atL|5qt5|76}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 54: | 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}}{{ | ''R v Leinen'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g01l8 2013 ABCA 283] (CanLII){{perABCA|Hunt JA}}{{atL|g01l8|117}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
==Case Digests== | ==Case Digests== | ||
* ''R v Kippax'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fp7n6 2011 ONCA 766] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}} | * ''R v Kippax'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fp7n6 2011 ONCA 766] (CanLII){{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atsL|fp7n6|21| to 28}} | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
* [[Parties to an Offence]] | * [[Parties to an Offence]] | ||
Revision as of 11:03, 21 August 2019
- < Criminal Law
- < Proof of Elements
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]
- ↑ R v Nette, 2001 SCC 78 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 488, per Arbour J, at para 44
- ↑ R v KL, 2009 ONCA 141 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at para 17
- ↑
KL, supra, at para 17 citing:
R v Smithers, 1977 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 506, per Dickson J, at p. 519
R v Nette, 2001 SCC 78 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 488, per Arbour J, at paras 71 and 72
- ↑
Nette, supra, at para 49
KL, supra, at para 18 - ↑
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
- Homicide (Murder and Manslaughter)
- Attempt Murder
- Assault causing bodily harm (267)
- Aggravated Assault (268)
- Sexual Assault causing bodily harm
- Aggravated Sexual Assault
- Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm
- Dangerous Driving Causing Death
- Fraud (380)
- Self-Defence and Defence of Another
Causation by Offence
A person who intentionally stabs another person will generally be considered to have intended to cause bodily harm.[1]
- ↑
R v Abbaya, 2000 ABPC 202 (CanLII), per Allen J, at para 76
Homicide
Accident
A panic response to circumstances may render an act involuntary.[1]
- ↑
R v Leinen, 2013 ABCA 283 (CanLII), per Hunt JA, at para 117
Case Digests
- R v Kippax, 2011 ONCA 766 (CanLII), per Watt JA, at paras 21 to 28