CA — Criminal Law (AI set 1)

All cards in this deck

R v Sault Ste Marie (1978) — what three categories of offences did the SCC establish?

The SCC held that offences fall into three categories: (1) true crimes requiring full mens rea; (2) strict liability offences allowing a due-diligence defence; and (3) absolute liability offences where no mental element is required and no due-diligence defence is available. This framework remains the foundation of Canadian regulatory offence law.

R v Jordan (2016) — what is the presumptive ceiling for trial delay under s. 11(b)?

The SCC established a presumptive ceiling of 18 months from charge to trial for cases tried in provincial court, and 30 months for cases in superior court (or cases with a preliminary inquiry). Delay beyond these ceilings is presumed unreasonable, engaging the accused's s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time, with the remedy typically being a stay of proceedings.

R v Grant (2009) — what test governs exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) Charter?

The SCC replaced the old 'conscriptive evidence' test with a three-part balancing framework: courts weigh (1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct; (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused; and (3) society's interest in adjudication on the merits. Evidence is excluded only if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

R v G. (S.G.) (1997) — what principle governs a trial judge's intervention in examination of witnesses?

The SCC held that a trial judge's excessive intervention during the examination of witnesses can give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and deny the accused a fair trial. The judge's role is to ensure a fair process, not to act as a co-prosecutor, and undue interference may constitute reversible error.

Under Canadian law, what is the key distinction between the defences of duress and necessity?

Duress arises from threats by a human agent compelling the accused to commit an offence; necessity arises from urgent, imminent circumstances of nature or events (not a human threat). Both defences require the accused's response to be proportionate and that there was no legal alternative — they are codified (duress under s. 17 Criminal Code) and supplemented by common law, as affirmed in cases such as R v Ruzic (2001) SCC 24.

What are the foundational principles governing sentencing under the Criminal Code of Canada?

Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and contribute to respect for the law by imposing just sanctions reflecting the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, separation, rehabilitation, reparation, and the promotion of responsibility. Section 718.1 requires that the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

What is the actus reus requirement of voluntariness, and why does it matter constitutionally?

The actus reus of every true crime must be a voluntary act or omission; an involuntary act cannot ground criminal liability. The SCC has recognized under s. 7 of the Charter that convicting someone for an involuntary act violates the principles of fundamental justice. This underlies defences such as automatism.

R v Reitsma (1998) — what did the SCC hold about the Crown's right of appeal from acquittal?

The SCC affirmed that the Crown's right of appeal from an acquittal is strictly limited and that an appellate court may only substitute a conviction if the trial judge made an error of law and, applying the correct legal standard, a verdict of guilty was the only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence.