PURPOSE
R. v. Hibbert (1995) SCC
This case surveyed the meaning of “purpose” in the context of CC21.1.b. Purpose is used in two contexts:
1. One can speak of an actor doing something “on purpose” as opposed to by accident – purpose is immediate intention. (Intent)
2. Purpose is also used to indicate the ultimate ends an actor seeks to achieve, which imports the idea of desire into the definition. (Desire)
KNOWLEDGE
Roach states that knowledge is a slightly lower form of subjective mens rea than intent and purpose. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The Dynar case states that there are two parts of knowledge – truth and belief. Only belief is relevant re: subjective mens rea.
WILFULLY
A requirement that the accused wilfully achieved a prohibited result imposes a high degree of subjective mens rea. Wilfully means that an act is done deliberately and intentionally.
R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher (1979) Ont. CA
The accused was convicted under CC281.2.2 for willfully promoting hatred against French Canadians. Two bilingual activists wanted a French-language school in their region. They made a pamphlet to get a response from the Government, which sought to highlight anti-French sentiment in their region. They did not wish to promote anti-French hatred or have the intent to do so for this would be to promote hatred against himself. Willful, in this section, meant intentionally rather than accidentally. The Ontario CA adopted the “foresight of certainty” test, meaning that it would have to have been shown that the distribution of the document was done for the purpose of promoting hatred against an identifiable group or that hatred was certain or morally certain to result. For example, one places a bomb on a boat hoping to destroy the cargo but ends up killing passengers is willfully responsible for the deaths – foresight of certainty.
General Rule: A person who foresees that a consequence is certain or substantially certain to result from an act which they do to achieve some purpose intends some consequence; however, the accused should be allowed to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she intended such consequences.
R. v. Docherty (1989) SCC
The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of care and control “over 80.” He was found sitting in a car apparently in an intoxicated state. He said that he was unaware that he was breaking the law since he believed that the car would not start. The trial judge acquitted him on the ground of lack of mens rea for willfully violating his probation order of keeping the peace and behaving well. The trial judge was correct in this finding because D unknowingly violated the terms of his probation, which contravenes CC19 but was saved as an exception to that general principle. “Where knowledge is itself a component of mens rea, the absence of knowledge provides a good defense.” How could the accused be convicted when he didn’t know he had violated his probation order.
RECKLESSNESS
Recklessness basically follows that one is aware of a risk but proceeds anyway. It entails a lower form of mens rea than intent. Its purpose is to assess willfulness or knowledge. Recklessness is reached at the point when a reasonable person would recognize the substantial risk of the consequences materializing and the consequence is less than inevitable but more than possible. This is distinguishable from negligence whereby the only requirement is that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have recognized the risk.
R. v. Theroux (1993) SCC
T was involved in building houses and sold several residences before their completion. T represented to the purchasers that their deposits were insured, although no such insurance existed. When the corporation went bankrupt, many purchasers lost their deposits. T claimed that he believed that the residences would be completed and that the purchasers would not be harmed. The accused’s belief that his conduct was not wrong or that no-one would be hurt was no defense to a charge of fraud under CC380.1. He knew he was placing the purchasers’ deposits at risk, even though he believed this risk would not materialize. This case asked the question: Did the accused, given his shortcomings and strengths, foresee the consequences or circumstances of his actions? (Not whether they reasonably ought, could or should have).
R. v. Sansregret (1985) SCC
This case distinguished the concepts of recklessness and willful blindness. They should be kept separate because they come from different mental attitudes and lead to different legal results. Recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and persistence in a course of conduct that creates a risk that the prohibited result will occur. Willful blindness arises where a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth. He would prefer to remain ignorant. Willful blindness is analogous to knowledge.
0 comments ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment