Answers should be only from TEXTS & MATERIALS
Text: Criminal Law in Canada: Cases, Questions, and the Code (7th ed.) by Simon Verdun-Jones
(now published by Top Hat)
Casebook: Canadian Criminal Cases: Selected Highlights (3d ed.) by Simon Verdun Jones (Top Hat)
A recent Criminal Code (2021/2022). Publishers are Thomson Reuters or Martins OR
Online access to this federal statute from the Government of Canada website
Assigned readings of cases and articles- posted on Blackboard or online
Part Two:
Chapters Four & Five and Handouts – Mens Rea (7 Questions)
1.Explain the difference between subjective mens rea and objective mens rea.
2.Define the actus reus and mens rea of fraud and explain why the accused Theroux had both of these and was convicted.
3.Define wilful blindness and what it means if you are found to have this mens rea by using the Briscoe case.
4.What was the mens rea standard for murder in the 1970 Trineer case?
Explain how and why the SCC changed this standard in the Ancio (attempted murder) and Martineau (murder) cases. Discuss these cases.
Why do you think this is a positive or negative change?
5.Where does the SCC find the objective mens rea in s 269 when deciding the Desousa case? Why was Desousa found to have this mens rea?
6.The Creighton case defined the modified objective test. How is it defined? Why was Creighton convicted of unlawful act manslaughter?
7.What is the definition of dangerous driving in s 320.13 (previously s 249). The SCC said in the Hundal case that this section suits an objective mens rea standard for 3 reasons. What are these? Why was Beatty not guilty of dangerous driving because he did not meet the objective mens rea standard?
Chapter Six & Handout- Regulatory Offences (6 Questions)
1.What is the purpose regulatory offences?
2.What are the differences between a regulatory offences and crime?
3.Who can create regulatory offences?
4.What is the difference between absolute and strict liability offences?
5.What did the Levis v Tetreault and 2629-4470 Inc case add to the law?
6.What did the Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act case decide?
Chapter Seven & Handouts- Methods of Participating in Crime ( 5 Questions)
1.Why was Greyeyes found guilty of trafficking in cocaine though he was not selling it? Is he equally guilty as the seller in the eyes of the law?
2.How does the Gladstone case illustrate s 24(2) of the attempted crime section of the Criminal Code? Why do these facts fit within its definition?
3.On what legal basis was Hamilton convicted of counselling an offence not committed under s 464 of the Code?
4.Lancelot decides to steal a valuable ring from Arthur. He goes to Arthur’s house and tries to get in by fiddling with the lock but is unsuccessful. Lancelot’s close friend Guinevere is disappointed when she discovers he failed to get the ring. She then goes to Arthur’s house and gets in using a set of skeleton keys. When she finds the box where Arthur keeps the ring, she opens it only to find it empty. Arthur had taken it for repair to a jeweller. Merlin, who lives in Arthur’s basement tells police that he saw exactly what Lancelot and Guinevere had done and that he had heard them talk previously about stealing the ring.
What criminal charges could be laid against Lancelot and Guinevere? How would you evaluate the Crown’s case against them based on the Criminal Code and case law you have studied? Explain how the cases you are using explain your answer.
5.Why does the SCC find in the Dery case that there is no crime of attempted conspiracy in Canada?
Chapters Nine to Twelve & Handouts – Defences to Crime (5 Questions)
1.How would the Levigne case apply to the following facts:
Smike, a 30-year-old man meets Mary, a young woman in a bar. Mary is drinking alcohol.
They have a conversation for an hour or so and then Smike invites Mary back to his apartment. They have consensual sexual intercourse. The next day the police arrive and arrest Smike and charge him with sexual assault under s 271 of the Criminal Code. It turns out Mary was 15 years old and had used a forged driver’s licence to get drinks in the bar. Does Smike have any defence to the charge?
2.Cruncher and Slammer are hockey players who play on opposing teams. When Cruncher has the puck on his stick, Slammer pushes him into the boards. An altercation develops and some punches are thrown. The play is stopped, and they are separated, and both are taken to the penalty boxes. Cruncher breaks free from the linesman and skates up to Slammer and punches him in the eye. Cruncher is much taller and heavier than Slammer.
The blow by Cruncher opens a deep cut under Slammer’s eye requiring many stitches.
Cruncher is charged with assault causing bodily harm. Using the Jobidon case and the law on the defence of consent evaluate whether Cruncher has a defence on these fact
3.Explain the status of the duress defence in Canada using the facts in the Ruzic case. Be sure to define the common law defence and how it is different from s.17.
4.How is the common law defence of necessity defined in Canada? How was it applied and what was left to be decided in the Perka et al case? Explain the defence of necessity as argued in the Latimer case and why it was not successful.
5.Using s 34 the new self defense section and the Lavallee case (decided under the previous s.34) evaluate the following facts noting carefully if there are any material differences in the facts from the Lavallee case. Discuss the application of the new s.34 that could apply to a murder or manslaughter charge.
Facts:
Holly has lived with Lyle for 10 years and there have been physical assaults by Lyle on Holly during that time, some causing serious injuries. When Holly returns home late one evening, Lyle is furious. He yells that he is “ going to fix her once and for all”, but he is drunk and falls asleep on the couch. Holly goes to the kitchen and picks up a large knife, returns to the couch where Lyle is sleeping and stabs him to death.
