Principles Of Criminal Liability In Canada
Principles of Criminal Liability in Canada
Canadian criminal law is primarily governed by the Criminal Code, interpreted through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), and clarified through major judicial decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).
Criminal liability requires two essential components:
Actus Reus – the guilty act
Mens Rea – the guilty mind
In some offences, additional doctrines apply, such as strict liability, absolute liability, party liability, attempt, and concurrent liability under the Charter.
Below is a full breakdown with major leading cases.
1. Actus Reus (The Guilty Act)
Definition:
Actus reus consists of the voluntary physical action, omission, or state of affairs prohibited by law.
It may include:
conduct
consequences
circumstances
Key Case Law
Case 1: R v. Smithers (1978)
Facts:
The accused punched a man, who later died from vomiting due to a rare medical condition.
Holding:
SCC held that the accused’s act need only be a “significant contributing cause” of death, not the sole cause.
Significance:
Defines the causal requirement of actus reus in homicide cases.
Establishes the de minimis threshold—conduct must be more than trivial.
Case 2: R v. Jordan (2016)
Facts:
Jordan’s trial was excessively delayed. He argued a Charter breach under s. 11(b) (right to timely trial).
Holding:
SCC established strict ceilings for trial delays (18 months in provincial courts, 30 months in superior courts).
Significance to Actus Reus:
Although a procedural case, it emphasizes that criminal trials require timely proof of all elements, including actus reus.
It reshaped procedural liability and fairness requirements.
2. Mens Rea (The Guilty Mind)
Definition:
Mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence—intent, knowledge, recklessness, or willful blindness.
Case 3: R v. Beaver (1957)
Facts:
Accused was found in possession of narcotics but argued he did not know they were illegal drugs.
Holding:
SCC ruled that knowledge is essential for possession offences.
Significance:
Established that mens rea for possession requires actual knowledge of the nature of the substance.
Case 4: R v. Sansregret (1985)
Facts:
Accused committed sexual assault and claimed he believed the act was consensual.
Holding:
Court ruled willful blindness is a substitute for actual knowledge.
Significance:
If the accused intentionally ignores obvious facts, mens rea is satisfied.
3. Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
Strict Liability:
Actus reus proven → accused may escape liability via due diligence defence.
Absolute Liability:
No mens rea required, no defence allowed.
Cannot lead to jail time due to Charter protections.
Case 5: R v. Sault Ste-Marie (1978)
Facts:
City contracted waste disposal company that polluted waters.
Holding:
SCC classified offences into:
True crimes (mens rea required)
Strict liability offences
Absolute liability offences
Significance:
Foundational case in Canadian regulatory and environmental law.
Case 6: Re BC Motor Vehicle Act (1985)
Facts:
An absolute liability offence carried possible imprisonment for driving while suspended.
Holding:
SCC ruled absolute liability + jail violates s. 7 of the Charter.
Significance:
Charter prohibits imprisonment for absolute liability offences.
Protects principles of fundamental justice.
4. Party Liability (Aiding, Abetting, Common Purpose)
A person may be criminally responsible even without committing the act directly.
Case 7: R v. Logan (1990)
Facts:
Accused charged as a party to an attempted murder.
Holding:
SCC held that where the principal offence requires specific intent, the party must also have that same intent.
Significance:
Clarifies mental fault for aiding/abetting high-intent offences.
Case 8: R v. Kirkness (1990)
Facts:
Kirkness participated in a burglary where a co-accused murdered an occupant.
Holding:
SCC rejected "constructive murder" doctrines.
A party must foresee the likelihood of the offence.
Significance:
Tightened liability standards under party provisions.
5. Attempts and Inchoate Offences
Principle:
An attempt is committed when:
intent to commit a crime exists
act goes beyond mere preparation
Case 9: R v. Côté (1978)
Facts:
Accused attempted to burn a building, but the fire didn't cause major damage.
Holding:
Attempt established if there is clear intent + actions sufficiently proximate.
Significance:
Clarifies the threshold between planning and criminal attempt.
6. Charter and Criminal Liability
The Charter ensures fundamental justice in criminal proceedings.
Case 10: R v. Oakes (1986)
Facts:
Oakes charged with narcotics possession; reverse-onus clause presumed trafficking.
Holding:
SCC struck down the presumption and created the Oakes Test for limiting rights.
Significance:
Protects mens rea requirements from unconstitutional presumptions.
Defines proportionality in limiting Charter rights.
Case 11: R v. Daviault (1994)
Facts:
Accused argued “extreme intoxication” negated intent.
Holding:
SCC allowed extreme intoxication as a defence but only in rare circumstances.
Significance:
Controversial ruling, later restricted by legislation.
Shows interplay of moral blameworthiness and constitutional rights.
7. Corporate Criminal Liability
Corporations can be held criminally liable for actions of senior officers.
Case 12: R v. Metron Construction (2013)
Facts:
Construction company charged after workers died on a platform collapse.
Holding:
Company convicted of criminal negligence.
Significance:
Reinforced that corporations bear criminal responsibility for systemic safety failures.
Summary Table of Principles & Cases
| Principle | Key Cases | Core Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Actus Reus | Smithers, Jordan | Must be voluntary; causation requires significant contribution |
| Mens Rea | Beaver, Sansregret | Knowledge, intent, recklessness; willful blindness counts |
| Strict/Absolute Liability | Sault Ste-Marie, BC Motor Vehicle | No jail for absolute liability; due diligence available for strict liability |
| Party Liability | Logan, Kirkness | Specific intent needed; actions must be foreseeable |
| Attempts | Côté | Must go beyond preparation |
| Charter Protections | Oakes, Daviault | Mens rea presumptions must be justified; intoxication defence limited |
| Corporate Liability | Metron | Corporations can be criminally negligent |
Key Insights
Canadian criminal liability balances fault + harm, emphasising fairness under the Charter.
Mens rea is central, except in strict liability cases where due diligence applies.
Causation thresholds are relatively low, (“significant contribution”).
Party liability requires proof of shared intent or foreseeability.
Attempts and incomplete offences still attract criminal liability if intent + proximity are shown.
Charter rights restrict how liability is imposed, especially for presumptive or absolute offences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments