Case Studies On Mental Health Defences
I. OVERVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH DEFENCES IN CANADA
Mental health defences in Canadian law primarily deal with situations where a mental disorder affects an accused’s criminal responsibility or fitness to stand trial. These defences are governed by Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code:
1. Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) – s.16 Criminal Code
Definition: A person is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the act, they were suffering from a mental disorder that rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of the act, or knowing that it was wrong.
Key Elements:
Presence of a mental disorder.
Inability to appreciate the act or its wrongfulness.
Connection between the disorder and the prohibited act.
2. Fitness to Stand Trial – s.2 & s.672.11–672.58
Accused must be able to:
Understand the nature or object of proceedings.
Communicate with counsel.
Make decisions about trial participation.
If unfit, trial may be delayed or alternative measures applied.
3. Automatism – Common Law
Definition: Involuntary action caused by an external factor (sleepwalking, concussion, reaction to medication) may excuse criminal liability.
Distinction:
Insane automatism: Caused by a mental disorder → NCRMD.
Non-insane automatism: Caused by external factor → complete acquittal possible.
Key Principles:
Burden of proof for NCRMD is on the defence (balance of probabilities).
Fitness to stand trial is determined via psychiatric assessments and court hearings.
Automatism and mental disorder defences are evaluated based on medical evidence and expert testimony.
II. CASE STUDIES AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
1. R. v. Swain (1991, SCC)
Issue: NCRMD and indefinite detention.
Facts
Swain was charged with assault while suffering from schizophrenia. He was found NCRMD and subjected to indefinite psychiatric detention without review.
Decision
SCC held that indefinite detention without review violated the Charter (s.7 & s.9).
Introduced regime of periodic review and individualized assessment for NCRMD individuals.
Established that NCRMD verdicts do not equate to criminal guilt, and treatment should be proportionate and rights-respecting.
Significance
Set the foundation for modern NCRMD regime in Canada.
Introduced safeguards balancing public safety and individual liberty.
2. R. v. Chaulk (1990, SCC)
Issue: NCRMD and appreciation of wrongfulness.
Facts
Chaulk, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, shot a man during a delusional episode. He argued NCRMD.
Decision
SCC confirmed that NCRMD requires incapacity to appreciate the nature of the act or its moral/legal wrongfulness.
Even if the accused knows it is legally wrong, inability to appreciate moral wrong due to mental disorder may suffice.
Mental disorder must have a direct causal link to the prohibited act.
Significance
Clarifies dual prong test: knowledge of nature of act + appreciation of wrongfulness.
Establishes standard for psychiatric evidence and expert testimony in NCRMD cases.
3. R. v. Parks (1992, SCC)
Issue: Non-insane automatism.
Facts
Kenneth Parks drove 23 km and attacked his in-laws while sleepwalking. He claimed non-insane automatism caused the act.
Decision
SCC accepted that sleepwalking can constitute automatism if involuntary and not caused by mental disorder.
Parks was acquitted because act was completely involuntary, and no underlying mental disorder existed.
Significance
Differentiates NCRMD from non-insane automatism.
External vs internal cause distinction is crucial for criminal liability.
Shows how medical evidence of involuntary action can lead to complete acquittal.
4. R. v. Swain (1991) & subsequent reforms (Review Boards)
Note: Post-Swain, provinces established Review Boards to oversee NCRMD individuals.
Review Boards determine: detention, conditional discharge, or absolute discharge.
Balances public safety with rehabilitation and rights of accused.
5. R. v. Stone (1999, SCC)
Issue: Automatism triggered by psychological blow.
Facts
Stone, abused by his spouse, killed her during a dissociative episode after being provoked. He claimed psychological automatism.
Decision
SCC ruled that mental disorder or automatism caused by internal factors (like long-term mental illness) may be NCRMD.
Automatism caused by external factor (blow, accident) may lead to acquittal.
Court emphasized careful psychiatric assessment and distinction between internal vs external causes.
Significance
Reinforces the internal/external cause distinction.
Clarifies treatment of dissociative or reactive automatism in Canadian law.
6. R. v. Swain / R. v. Taylor (1993, SCC, Ontario Court)
Addresses fitness to stand trial.
Accused must understand proceedings and communicate with counsel.
Trial may be delayed or alternative measures implemented if unfit.
Periodic reassessment ensures fitness before trial continues.
III. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES
| Principle | Case Example |
|---|---|
| NCRMD requires incapacity to appreciate nature or wrongfulness | Chaulk |
| Non-insane automatism can result in complete acquittal | Parks |
| Internal causes → NCRMD, External causes → automatism | Stone |
| Periodic review and rights protection for NCRMD individuals | Swain |
| Fitness to stand trial is essential for fair process | Swain / Taylor |
IV. CONCLUSION
Mental health defences in Canadian law balance:
Protection of public safety
Rights of the accused under Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Reliance on psychiatric evidence for assessment of mental disorder or automatism
Clear distinction between NCRMD and non-insane automatism
Key takeaways:
NCRMD is partial excuse, leading to treatment and supervision rather than punishment.
Automatism can lead to complete acquittal if truly involuntary.
Courts have developed detailed frameworks for assessing fitness and criminal responsibility.
RELATED Blog
comments