R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun

R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2011-11-30
Neutral citation
2011 SCC 58
Report
[2011] 3 SCR 575
Case number
33687
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 33687
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575
Date: 20111130
Docket: 33687
Between:
Tommy Bouchard-Lebrun
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
- and -
Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Ontario
Interveners
Official English Translation
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 92)
LeBel J. (McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. concurring)
R. v. Bouchard‑Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575
Tommy Bouchard‑Lebrun Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General
of Ontario Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. Bouchard‑Lebrun
2011 SCC 58
File No.: 33687.
2011: May 16; 2011: November 30.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Criminal law — Defences — Mental disorder — Accused assaulting two individuals while in state of toxic psychosis resulting from voluntary consumption of drugs — Whether toxic psychosis whose symptoms are caused by state of self‑induced intoxication can be “mental disorder” — Whether s. 33.1 of Criminal Code limits scope of defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 16 , 33.1 .
B brutally assaulted two individuals while he was in a psychotic condition caused by drugs he had taken a few hours earlier. As a result of these incidents, B was charged with aggravated assault. The trial judge convicted B on the basis that all the elements of s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code (“Cr. C.”), which provides that self‑induced intoxication cannot be a defence to an offence against the bodily integrity of another person, had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. B then tried unsuccessfully on appeal to obtain a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under s. 16 Cr. C. The Court of Appeal held that s. 33.1 Cr. C. applied in this case.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
A court must consider the specific principles that govern the insanity defence in order to determine whether s. 16 Cr. C. is applicable. If that defence does not apply, the court can then consider whether the defence of self‑induced intoxication under s. 33.1 Cr. C. is applicable if it is appropriate to do so on the facts of the case. Intoxication and insanity are two distinct legal concepts.
An accused who wishes to successfully raise the insanity defence must meet the requirements of a two‑stage statutory test. The first stage involves characterizing the mental state of the accused. The key issue to be decided at trial at this stage is whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder in the legal sense at the time of the alleged events. The second stage of the defence provided for in s. 16 Cr. C. concerns the effects of the mental disorder. At this stage, it must be determined whether, owing to his or her mental condition, the accused was incapable of knowing that the act or omission was wrong. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that B was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the material time. Therefore, the only issue in this appeal is whether the psychosis resulted from a “mental disorder” within the meaning of s. 16 Cr. C.
Toxic psychosis does not always result from a “mental disorder”. In Stone, Bastarache J. proposed an approach for distinguishing toxic psychoses that result from mental disorders from those that do not. This approach is structured around two analytical tools, namely the internal cause factor and the continuing danger factor, and certain policy considerations.
The internal cause factor, the first of the analytical tools, involves comparing the accused with a normal person. The comparison between the accused and a normal person will be objective and may be based on the psychiatric evidence. The more the psychiatric evidence suggests that a normal person, that is, a person suffering from no disease of the mind, is susceptible to such a state, the more justified the courts will be in finding that the trigger is external. Such a finding would exclude the condition of the accused from the scope of s. 16 Cr. C. The reverse also holds true.
In this case, the application of the first factor suggests that the drug-taking is an external cause. It seems likely that the reaction of a normal person to taking drugs would indeed be to develop toxic psychosis. This strongly suggests that B was not suffering from a mental disorder at the time he committed the impugned acts. And the rapid appearance of psychotic symptoms generally indicates that B’s delusions can be attributed to an external factor. In addition, the psychotic symptoms B experienced began to diminish shortly after he took the drugs and continued to do so until disappearing completely. The Court of Appeal held that the disappearance of the symptoms showed that the symptoms of toxic psychosis coincided with the duration of B’s intoxication. It could thus say that B suffered from no disease of the mind before committing the crimes and once the effects of his drug-taking had passed. There is no valid reason to depart from this conclusion.
The second analytical tool, the continuing danger factor, is directly related to the need to ensure public safety. In this case, there is no evidence indicating that B’s mental condition is inherently dangerous in any way. Provided that B abstains from such drugs in the future, which he is capable of doing voluntarily, it would seem that his mental condition poses no threat to public safety.
In this context, B was not suffering from a “mental disorder” for the purposes of s. 16 Cr. C. at the time he committed the assault. A malfunctioning of the mind that results exclusively from self‑induced intoxication cannot be considered a disease of the mind in the legal sense, since it is not a product of the individual’s inherent psychological makeup. This is true even though medical science may tend to consider such conditions to be diseases of the mind.
The foregoing conclusion leads to the question whether s. 33.1 Cr. C. is applicable. This provision applies where three conditions are met: (1) the accused was intoxicated at the material time; (2) the intoxication was self‑induced; and (3) the accused departed from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society by interfering or threatening to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person. Where these three things are proved, it is not a defence that the accused lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence. Section 33.1 Cr. C. therefore applies to any mental condition that is a direct extension of a state of intoxication. There is no threshold of intoxication beyond which s. 33.1 Cr. C. does not apply to an accused, which means that toxic psychosis can be one of the states of intoxication covered by this provision. It is so covered in the case at bar. The Court of Appeal therefore did not err in law in holding that s. 33.1 Cr. C. was applicable rather than s. 16 Cr. C.
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; discussed: R. v. Daviault, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; Cooper v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; Leary v. The Queen, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; referred to: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479; R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523; R. v. Robinson, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683; R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; R. v. Huppie, 2008 ABQB 539 (CanLII); R. v. King, [1962] S.C.R. 746; Rabey v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513, aff’g (1977), 17 O.R. (2d) 1; R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871; Perka v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; R. v. Ruzic, 2001 SCC 24, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; R. v. Simpson (1977), 35 C.C.C. (2d) 337; R. v. Luedecke, 2008 ONCA 716, 269 O.A.C. 1; R. v. Oakley (1986), 24 C.C.C. (3d) 351; R. v. Mailloux (1985), 25 C.C.C. (3d) 171, aff’d [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1029; R. v. Moroz, 2003 ABPC 5, 333 A.R. 109; R. v. Snelgrove, 2004 BCSC 102 (CanLII); R. v. Lauv, 2004 BCSC 1093 (CanLII); R. v. Fortin, 2005 CanLII 6933; R. v. Paul, 2011 BCCA 46, 299 B.C.A.C. 85; R. v. Malcolm (1989), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 172; R. v. D.P., 2009 QCCQ 644 (CanLII); R. v. Vickberg (1998), 16 C.R. (5th) 164; R. v. Chaulk, 2007 NSCA 84, 257 N.S.R. (2d) 99.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 , 11 (d).
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 2 , 16 , 33.1 , 266 (a), 268 , 348(1) (a), 463 , Part XX.1.
Authors Cited
Alexander, Larry, and Kimberly Kessler Ferzan with contributions by Stephen J. Morse. Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Barrett, Joan, and Riun Shandler. Mental Disorder in Canadian Criminal Law. Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2006 (loose‑leaf updated 2011, release 2).
Canada. House of Commons. House of Commons Debates, vol. 133, 1st Sess., 35th Parl., June 22, 1995, p. 14470.
Parent, Hugues. “Les Troubles psychotiques induits par une substance en droit pénal canadien: analyse médicale et juridique d’un concept en pleine évolution” (2010), 69 R. du B. 103.
Parent, Hugues. Responsabilité pénale et troubles mentaux: Histoire de la folie en droit pénal français, anglais et canadien. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 1999.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Thibault, Rochette and Gagnon JJ.A.), 2010 QCCA 402, 260 C.C.C. (3d) 548, 76 C.R. (6th) 59, [2010] Q.J. No. 1672 (QL), 2010 CarswellQue 9208, affirming the convictions for aggravated assault and assault entered by Decoste J.C.Q., 2008 QCCQ 5844 (CanLII), [2008] J.Q. no 6218 (QL), 2008 CarswellQue 6362 (sub nom. R. v. Lebrun). Appeal dismissed.
Véronique Robert and Roland Roy, for the appellant.
Guy Loisel and Pierre DesRosiers, for the respondent.
Ginette Gobeil and François Joyal, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Robert E. Gattrell and Joan Barrett, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered by
LeBel J. —
I. Introduction
[1] In this appeal, the Court must decide whether a toxic psychosis that results from a state of self‑induced intoxication caused by an accused person’s use of chemical drugs constitutes a “mental disorder” within the meaning of s. 16 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 (“Cr. C.”), and thus exempts the appellant from criminal responsibility for an offence involving interference with the bodily integrity of another person. In general, this case also gives the Court an opportunity to review the respective scopes of the insanity defence and the defence of self‑induced intoxication.
[2] The appellant brutally assaulted two individuals while he was in a psychotic condition caused by chemical drugs he had taken a few hours earlier. He seriously injured one of the individuals by stomping on his head. The victim suffered serious and permanent harm. After being convicted by the Court of Québec on two counts of aggravated assault and assault (2008 QCCQ 5844 (CanLII)), the appellant tried unsuccessfully on appeal to obtain a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (2010 QCCA 402, 260 C.C.C. (3d) 548). With leave of this Court, the appellant is now appealing the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which rejected the argument that a toxic psychosis resulting from the voluntary consumption of drugs is a “mental disorder” within the meaning of s. 16 Cr. C.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I find that the judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct in law. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.
II. Main Facts
[4] The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute. For the purposes of this appeal, it will suffice to mention that the appellant, Tommy Bouchard‑Lebrun, and a long‑time acquaintance of his, Yohann Schmouth, had smoked marijuana and taken amphetamines during the day on October 23, 2005. In the evening, they decided to go to Amqui so the appellant could visit his parents. They took the bus from Rivière‑du‑Loup, where the appellant lived, to the last stop in Mont‑Joli. They were still intoxicated when they got on the bus.
[5] When they arrived in Mont‑Joli during the night on October 24, the appellant and his friend decided to hitchhike to Amqui. At about 1:30 a.m., Gilles Tremblay, an old acquaintance of the appellant’s family, picked them up in his car. At that time, no signs of intoxication were apparent from the appellant’s behaviour. At trial, Mr. Tremblay stated that he had not noticed anything unusual about the appellant at any time during the car trip. His statements confirmed Mr. Schmouth’s testimony that the appellant was [translation] “OK” again when they were around Val‑Brillant, a municipality about 15 kilometres from Amqui. Therefore, it seems that the drugs taken by the appellant during the day on October 23 had ceased to have effect before he arrived in Amqui with Mr. Schmouth.
[6] In Amqui, the two young men purchased ecstasy pills of a type known as “poire bleue”, which they took during the night on October 24. During the hours that followed, the appellant and Mr. Schmouth decided to go and beat up Dany Lévesque, who was known as “Pee‑Wee”, for the real or imagined reason that he wore an [translation] “upside‑down cross” around his neck. Around 5:00 a.m., the appellant and Mr. Schmouth illegally entered the building where Mr. Lévesque lived. Roger Dumas, who lived on the second floor of the building, was woken up by noise coming from the ground floor and went down to Mr. Lévesque’s apartment to find out what was going on. The two occupants of the building met in the stairs and realized that the appellant and Mr. Schmouth were there, and the latter two then brutally attacked Mr. Lévesque by punching and kicking him many times.
[7] Mr. Dumas saw that Mr. Lévesque could not defend himself against his two attackers and tried to intervene. The appellant grabbed him and threw him violently down the stairs. Mr. Dumas lay on the floor at the bottom of the stairs. The appellant went down to where he was and stomped on his head. The assault left Mr. Dumas disabled, and he will have to spend the rest of his life in a hospital.
[8] At the time of the assault, the appellant was highly intoxicated because of the effects of the “poire bleue” pill he had taken a few hours earlier. In addition to the “normal” symptoms of intoxication resulting from the use of that drug, the highly toxic pill had produced a striking and, according to the appellant, unanticipated effect on him, as it caused a complete dissociation between the appellant’s subjective perceptions and the objective reality. To put it bluntly, he was [translation] “on another planet”. Two witnesses at the trial stated that he [translation] “started acting weird” and was “completely out of it” after taking the “poire bleue” pill.
[9] In actual fact, the appellant experienced an episode that might be described as religious delirium in light of its symptoms. It was after taking the drug that he became obsessed with the “upside‑down cross” supposedly worn by Mr. Lévesque. During the attack, he made statements of a religious nature that, although coherent, were basically absurd. For example, he said that the Apocalypse was coming. At one point, he raised his arms in the air and asked the victims and the helpless witnesses to the attack whether they believed in him. After referring a few times to God and the Devil once the attack was over, he blessed Mr. Dumas’s spouse by making the sign of the cross on her forehead. Mr. Dumas was still lying on the floor when the appellant then left the scene very calmly as if nothing had just happened.
[10] It has never been in dispute, in any of the courts, that the appellant was in a serious psychotic condition at the time of the offences and that the effects of that condition diminished gradually until they disappeared on October 28, 2005. The essential issue in this appeal is instead how that psychosis affects the appellant’s criminal responsibility. I will consider this issue later in these reasons. For now, it will suffice to note that, according to the evidence, the appellant had never experienced a psychotic episode such as this prior to the incidents in question. He had no underlying disease of the mind, nor was he addicted to a particular substance. Although he described himself at trial as an [translation] “occasional user” of drugs, the evidence does not establish that he “abused” drugs — if it can be said that occasional drug use does not constitute abuse, that is.
[11] As a result of these incidents, the appellant was charged with committing aggravated assault on Mr. Dumas and Mr. Lévesque contrary to ss. 266 (a) and 268 Cr. C., and with breaking and entering a dwelling‑house with intent to commit an indictable offence and attempting to break and enter a place other than a dwelling-house contrary to ss. 348(1) (a) and 463 Cr. C. He pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.
III. Judicial History
A. Court of Québec, 2008 QCCQ 5844 (CanLII) (Judge Decoste)
[12] At a trial before a judge alone, the appellant raised one defence. Although he admitted that he had committed the acts on which the charges were based, he claimed that, at the time, he had been under the effects of a psychotic condition induced by Mr. Schmouth’s spiritual influence. The defence’s position was that this psychotic condition had prevented the appellant from exercising judgment to assess what impact his drug‑taking on October 23 and 24, 2005 might have (para. 31). As a result, he was exempt from criminal liability for the commission of the acts for which he had been charged.
[13] Two psychiatrists were heard at trial, one for the Crown and the other for the defence. They were in agreement that the appellant had been suffering from [translation] “a severe psychosis that made him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong” (para. 33) at the time he committed the acts in question. However, the experts disagreed about the origin of the psychosis. Dr. Roger Turmel, the defence’s expert, stated that the appellant’s psychosis had resulted mainly from [translation] “the mystical atmosphere” into which he had been plunged by Mr. Schmouth. In Dr. Turmel’s opinion, “even Mr. [Bouchard‑]Lebrun’s decision to take drugs was not made freely but was influenced in a way by the control his friend exerted over him” (para. 31). The Crown’s expert disagreed with this. According to Dr. Sylvain Faucher, the circumstances required for psychosis resulting from a third party’s influence were not present in this case. He concluded instead that, at the material time, the appellant had been suffering from toxic psychosis, that is, psychosis caused by the consumption of toxic substances (para. 37).
[14] Judge Decoste accepted Dr. Faucher’s opinion and found that the appellant had been suffering from toxic psychosis at the time he committed the offences (para. 41). In Judge Decoste’s view, because of that state of extreme intoxication, the appellant had to be acquitted on the counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit a criminal offence and attempting to break and enter. He then convicted the appellant on the counts of aggravated assault on Mr. Dumas and assault on Mr. Lévesque, referring for that purpose to s. 33.1 Cr. C., which provides that self‑induced intoxication cannot be a defence to an offence against the bodily integrity of another person (para. 51).
[15] In a separate judgment (2008 QCCQ 8927 (CanLII)), Judge Decoste sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for five years for the offence of aggravated assault and three months concurrent for that of common assault.
B. Quebec Court of Appeal, 2010 QCCA 402, 260 C.C.C. (3d) 548 (Thibault, Rochette and Gagnon JJ.A.)
[16] The appellant appealed the guilty verdict and the related sentence to the Quebec Court of Appeal. In the appeal against the verdict, his defence and arguments changed. He no longer claimed that his psychotic condition had resulted from Mr. Schmouth’s spiritual influence. After conceding that he had acted under the influence of a toxic psychosis, he instead argued that the defence of mental disorder should have been applicable as a result of this condition, since the evidence at trial showed that he had been incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the material time (para. 18).
[17] In general terms, the appellant argued that the trial judge had confused the insanity defence under s. 16 Cr. C. with the defence of self‑induced intoxication under s. 33.1 Cr. C. He therefore asked the Court of Appeal to disregard s. 33.1 and find that he was not criminally responsible on the basis that his toxic psychosis on the night of October 24, 2005 was a “mental disorder” within the meaning of s. 16 Cr. C.
[18] The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s arguments. Thibault J.A., writing for the court, began by expressing disagreement with the premise on which they were based, namely that the development of a psychotic condition was [translation] “unforeseeable” in this case (para. 32). She noted that, on the contrary, Dr. Faucher’s testimony had proved that 50 percent of PCP users and 13 percent of amphetamine users were likely to develop such a condition (ibid.). She added that the appellant seemed to be one of those people, since the effects of his psychosis had lasted as long as he had remained intoxicated (para. 34).
[19] Thibault J.A. then pointed out that according to the line of authority based on R. v. Daviault, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, the defence of self‑induced intoxication was available in extreme cases to accused persons charged with general intent offences. She added that the enactment by Parliament of s. 33.1 Cr. C. had limited this defence to non‑violent offences.
[20] To conclude her analysis, Thibault J.A. considered the scope of s. 16 Cr. C., which concerns the insanity defence. She acknowledged that the courts had held that the defence was available to an accused person suffering from an underlying mental disorder whose mental condition had [translation] “deteriorated even more” as a result of drug use (para. 77). However, she pointed out that this Court had clearly held in Cooper v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149, that transitory psychosis induced by drug use cannot be considered a “disease of the mind” within the meaning of ss. 2 and 16 Cr. C. She accordingly held that because of the appellant’s psychotic condition at the time he assaulted his victims, his insanity defence under s. 16 of the Criminal Code could not succeed.
[21] In this regard, Thibault J.A. added that the appellant had no underlying disease of the mind and had become perfectly sane again once the effects of the “poire bleue” had passed. Finally, in her opinion, the appellant’s argument was an attempt to circumvent Parliament’s intent by making it possible for an accused person to plead self‑induced intoxication to avoid criminal liability for an offence against the bodily integrity of another person (para. 79), whereas the explicit purpose of the enactment of s. 33.1 Cr. C. had been to preclude such an outcome.
[22] The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal against sentence on the basis that the sentences imposed by the trial judge, though harsh, were not unreasonable (para. 85).
IV. Analysis
A. Issues
[23] This appeal raises the following issues:
1. Does s. 33.1 Cr. C. limit the scope of the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder provided for in s. 16 Cr. C.?
2. Can a toxic psychosis whose symptoms are caused by a state of self‑induced intoxication be a “mental disorder” within the meaning of s. 16 Cr. C.?
B. Understanding the Nature of the Issue in This Appeal: Response to Daviault and Interplay Between Sections 16 and 33.1 Cr. C.
[24] The appellant concedes that the evidence in the record shows that his toxic psychosis resulted exclusively from his state of self‑induced intoxication the night of October 24, 2005. Although he disagrees with the failure of the courts below to take his predisposition to such a psychiatric disorder into account, he is not specifically submitting that they erred in rejecting the argument that his intoxication had triggered a latent disease of the mind. Indeed, his counsel stated at the hearing in this Court that she was not raising this as a ground of appeal (transcript, at p. 4).
[25] Nevertheless, the appellant’s position leads to the same result. It amounts in substance to arguing that a single episode of intoxication can be a “mental disorder” within the meaning of s. 16 Cr. C. if it produces abnormal effects on the accused, such as psychotic symptoms. The syllogism proposed by the appellant comes down to this: since toxic psychosis is an abnormal effect of intoxication, it necessarily affects only those whose psyches are particularly fragile or vulnerable. As a result, this toxic psychosis must be considered a mental disorder from a legal standpoint.
[26] Thus, the appellant is arguing indirectly that the toxic psychosis he developed after taking a “poire bleue” pill resulted from an underlying disease of the mind that became apparent as a result of his intoxication. But because of the obstacles presented by the evidence in the record and the trial judge’s findings of fact in relation to this argument, the appellant does not focus on his personal situation. Instead, he relies on an argument of general application. According to him, any toxic psychosis, even one that results, as the trial judge found in this case, from a single episode of intoxication, must be considered a “mental disorder” within the meaning of s. 16 Cr. C. (A.F., at para. 48). The appellant’s reasoning therefore rests on the premise that intoxication can never be the real or underlying cause of toxic psychosis and that toxic psychosis must originate in a pre‑existing mental condition.
[27] The corollary to this argument is that a person in a psychotic condition should never, from a legal standpoint, be considered merely to be intoxicated (transcript, at p. 11). The appellant thus contends that the Court of Appeal confused the defence of self‑induced intoxication with that of mental disorder under s. 16 Cr. C. in holding that s. 33.1 Cr. C. applied in this case (A.F., at para. 34). More specifically, the appellant argues that Thibault J.A. erred in writing that [translation] “[h]is submission would have the effect of rendering s. 33.1 Cr. C. meaningless and [disregarding] the clearly expressed legislative intent of preventing individuals who reach a state of extreme intoxication by voluntarily consuming drugs or alcohol from avoiding criminal liability” (para. 79). In his opinion, this passage wrongly suggests that s. 33.1 Cr. C. limits the scope of the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
[28] The appellant adds that the passage in question is incorrect in law because Parliament, in enacting s. 33.1 Cr. C., endorsed the position taken by the dissenting judges in Daviault that, owing to policy considerations, the defence of self‑induced intoxication should not be available in the case of a general intent offence. He points out that those dissenting judges had acknowledged that [translation] “toxic psychosis remained a defence under s. 16” (A.F., at para. 74). The appellant therefore submits that the dissent in Daviault struck a judicious balance and gave effect to society’s wish to punish reprehensible acts committed by persons who decide voluntarily to become intoxicated, but not to punish those who lack the mental capacity to form any culpable intent. In his view, Sopinka J.’s reasons support his position that [translation] “those who become mentally ill as a result of drug use are fragile and vulnerable individuals who are predisposed to mental disorders” (A.F., at para. 84). But the appellant raises no arguments regarding the constitutionality of s. 33.1 Cr. C., which means that only the interpretation and application of that provision are in issue.
[29] Before I respond to the appellant’s argument that s. 33.1 Cr. C. must not be interpreted as changing the scope of the defence of mental disorder, it will be helpful to briefly summarize the case law that led to the enactment of that provision. There are three seminal cases in this regard. The first is the decision of the House of Lords in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479, in which Lord Birkenhead set out the following three rules (as summarized by Bastarache J. in R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523, at para. 34):
(1) That intoxication could be a ground for an insanity defence if it produced a disease of the mind.
(2) That evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent.
(3) That evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts.
[30] In Beard, therefore, the House of Lords stated the principle that intoxication can be raised as a defence in respect of a specific intent offence in certain circumstances. This principle still represents the state of the law in Canada on this question, although it is subject to the qualification of Lord Birkenhead’s third rule in R. v. Robinson, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683 (Daley, at para. 40). In Robinson, this Court held that the third of the rules from Beard, which was based on the capacity of the accused to form a specific intent, violated ss. 7 and 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , because it required a jury to convict even if there was a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed actual intent. The Court therefore replaced this rule with one to the effect that intoxication can be a defence if it prevented the accused from forming the actual specific intent to commit the offence.
[31] Since Beard, it has thus been possible to apply the intoxication defence to acquit an accused charged with a specific intent offence or, where the nature of the offence so permits, to convict the accused of a lesser included offence requiring only general intent. Another question that subsequently arose was whether an accused could also use the defence of self‑induced intoxication to raise a reasonable doubt about mens rea where the offence required only general intent. In Leary v. The Queen, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29, this Court answered this question in the negative. In that case, the Court established the principle that the recklessness shown by an accused in becoming voluntarily intoxicated can constitute the fault element needed to find that a general intent offence has been committed (Daley, at para. 36; see also the reasons of McIntyre J. in R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833).
[32] In Daviault, however, a majority of the Court held that the “substituted mens rea” rule from Leary was contrary to ss. 7 and 11 (d) of the Charter . Cory J. stated that “[a] person intending to drink cannot be said to be intending to commit a sexual assault” (p. 92). He added that “to deny that even a very minimal mental element is required for sexual assault offends the Charter in a manner that is so drastic and so contrary to the principles of fundamental justice that it cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter ” (ibid.). The Court thus cast aside the Leary rule in Daviault and established the principle that accused persons who were in a “state akin to automatism or insanity” at the time they committed an act constituting a general intent offence would be legally entitled to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the required mental element (pp. 99‑100).
[33] Sopinka J. wrote a strong dissent in Daviault. In his view, there was no reason to abandon the Leary rule, since the application of that rule did not relieve the Crown of the responsibility of proving “the existence of a mens rea or any of the other elements of the offence of sexual assault which are required by the principles of fundamental justice” (p. 115). He felt that the validity of the Leary rule was also reinforced by sound policy considerations, including society’s right “to punish those who of their own free will render themselves so intoxicated as to pose a threat to other members of the community” (p. 114).
[34] Less than a year after Daviault, Parliament enacted s. 33.1 Cr. C. to ensure that “intoxication may never be used as a defence against general intent violent crimes such as sexual assault and assault” (House of Commons Debates, vol. 133, 1st Sess., 35th Parl., June 22, 1995, at p. 14470). The section reads as follows:
33.1 (1) [When defence not available] It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self‑induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).
(2) [Criminal fault by reason of intoxication] For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self‑induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.
(3) [Application] This section applies in respect of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that includes as an element an assault or any other interference or threat of interference by a person with the bodily integrity of another person.
[35] In a general sense, the appellant can reasonably argue that Parliament implicitly endorsed Sopinka J.’s dissent in Daviault by enacting s. 33.1 Cr. C. However, the enactment of that provision did not revive the Leary rule. It did not actually codify the position taken by the dissenting judges in Daviault; rather, it limited the scope of the rule stated by the majority. This means that the principles set out in Daviault still represent the state of the law in Canada, subject, of course, to the significant restriction set out in s. 33.1 Cr. C. Daviault would still apply today, for example, to enable an accused charged with a property offence to plead extreme intoxication. Indeed, the fact that the appellant was acquitted at trial on the charges against him under ss. 348(1) (a) and 463 Cr. C. affords an eloquent example of this.
[36] This being said, the appellant is right to say that s. 33.1 Cr. C. should not be interpreted so as to limit the scope of s. 16 Cr. C. Intoxication and insanity are two distinct legal concepts. As defences to criminal charges, they have different logics and each of them is governed by its own principles.
[37] First of all, it is important to understand that the application of s. 16 Cr. C. and that of s. 33.1 Cr. C. are mutually exclusive. For s. 33.1 Cr. C. to apply, the court must reach a conclusion in law that the accused lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence by reason of self‑induced intoxication. The absence of this intent or voluntariness would then preclude a finding that the incapacity of the accused was caused by a disease of the mind (R. v. Huppie, 2008 ABQB 539 (CanLII), at para. 21). Conversely, the fact that an accused was intoxicated at the material time cannot support a finding that s. 33.1 Cr. C. applies if the accused establishes that he or she was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his or her acts by reason of a mental disorder.
[38] This general principle does not seem particularly contentious. If the accused was intoxicated and in a psychotic condition at the material time, the problem the court faces is to identify a specific source for his or her mental condition, namely self‑induced intoxication or a disease of the mind, and determine whether it falls within the scope of s. 33.1 or s. 16 Cr. C. This appears to be all the more difficult to do in cases in which the mental health of the accused was already precarious prior to the incident in question, even if his or her problems had not yet been diagnosed at the time, and in which the psychosis emerged while the accused was highly intoxicated. Yet this identification of the source of the psychosis plays a key role, since it will ultimately determine whether the accused will be held criminally responsible for his or her actions.
[39] The law, as it now stands, includes a fairly general framework for resolving this difficult question. The starting point must be the legal concept of “disease of the mind” as defined by Dickson J. in Cooper, the leading case:
In summary, one might say that in a legal sense “disease of the mind” embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding however, self‑induced states caused by alcohol or drugs, as well as transitory mental states such as hysteria or concussion. [Emphasis added; p. 1159.]
[40] There is of course some correlation between “self‑induced states caused by alcohol or drugs”, which the Court, in Cooper, excluded from the definition of the legal concept of “disease of the mind” for the purposes of s. 16 Cr. C., and the states of intoxication now covered by s. 33.1 Cr. C. However, where an accused raises a defence of mental disorder, it important that the legal analysis of the situation follow a logical order. The court must not begin its analysis by considering whether the mental condition of the accused at the material time is covered by s. 33.1 Cr. C. Such an approach would reverse the steps of the appropriate analytical process and disregard the nature of the defence raised by the accused. And as a result of it, the legal characterization exercise required by s. 16 Cr. C. would depend on the interpretation of the concept of causation in issue in s. 33.1 Cr. C. The court must instead consider the specific principles that govern the insanity defence in order to determine whether s. 16 Cr. C. is applicable. If that defence does not apply, the court can then consider whether s. 33.1 Cr. C. is applicable if it is appropriate to do so on the facts of the case.
[41] These observations, which are necessary to broadly delineate the respective scopes of ss. 16 and 33.1 Cr. C., do not dispose of the appellant’s main argument regarding the actual content of the insanity defence. The appellant submits that Cooper’s exclusion of “self‑induced states caused by alcohol or drugs” applies only to the normal effects of intoxication (transcript, at p. 20). In this context, what remains to be determined is whether a toxic psychosis that results exclusively from a state of intoxication, which the appellant views as an “abnormal effect” of intoxication, constitutes