LRW In-Class Exam questions well
answered
S. 17 applies to... - correct answer ✔✔principal offenders, likely does not include Gerry's
behavior, which better fits that of a secondary party described by s. 21(1)(b) (indirect, non-
violent, facilitation, like Gionet)
Common law defense of duress (S. 8(3)) (more flexible, less stringent) excuses... - correct
answer ✔✔parties' wrongful conduct where it is rendered morally involuntary by coercive
threats of death or grievous bodily harm
s. 8(3) applies where the accused: - correct answer ✔✔1) acts solely because of serious threats,
2) reasonably believes threats could be carried out, 3) acted reasonably and proportionately,
and 4) has no safe avenue of escape
Procedure for defence of duress: - correct answer ✔✔Based on totality of circumstances, Gerry
has evidential burden to raise an air of reality (AOR, Evidence upon which a reasonable jury
properly instructed could acquit), then Crown has persuasive burden to disprove duress in any
one element beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD), or acquittal.
Jurisdiction: - correct answer ✔✔Gionet (NB), SCC cases (Hibbert, Ruzik) are
binding/persuasive, Keller and Laughy (lower trial court) and Mena (ON) are not binding but
may guide interpretation where consistent with binding authorities
(THREAT) What are the three elements of Threat of Death/GBH - correct answer ✔✔grave
threats of death or grievous bodily harm, immediacy/temporal connection between threat and
harm threatened, acted solely as a result of threats
, (THREAT) Harley's threats were grave threats targeting personal safety: (factors) - correct
answer ✔✔Coercive context of unjust extortion (Gionet, Laughy), implicit threats of future
harm like Gionet (10, 35), surveillance and risk of multiple accomplices increases risk,
intimidating physical conduct
(THREAT) Harley's threats were temporally connected to the harm threatened: factors - correct
answer ✔✔Short time period (unlike Gionet/18 days, Keller/4 months), continuing threat of
surveillance, and Harley's presence at meeting point renews immediacy
(THREAT) Harley's threats were the sole motivation for Gerry's conduct: factors - correct answer
✔✔Gerry's quiet off-grid lifestyle, aversion to conflict, terror and disorientation, lack of financial
incentive/benefit, amplified by Harley's presence during offence (coercive)
(THREAT) Crown Counterarguments for Threats of Death/GBH: - correct answer ✔✔Threats
were too vague, indirect and nonviolent; signify financial/legal consequences; no evidence of
weapons, reputation, history; possible financial incentive
(BELIEF) AOR test for belief in credibility of threat: - correct answer ✔✔whether Harley's "acts,
conduct or words... could reasonably be construed as a threat of the required kind" and affect
Gerry's mind at time of offence (Gionet, 25)
(BELIEF) What is it that makes Gerry reasonably believe Harley's implied threats? - correct
answer ✔✔Conduct (knowledge, proximity, stepping forward, seizure of phone), implied threats
of unpleasant consequences and surveillance (Gionet, implied accepted as credible if accused
reasonably believed them), terror and compliance support genuine belief in threats' credibility
(BELIEF) What illustrates that the threat was operative at time of offence - correct answer
✔✔Second encounter, renewed threat and Harley's presence moments before the offence
(BELIEF) What are the crown counterarguments for reasonable belief? (lacked reasonable belief
in Harley's capacity to carry out threat) - correct answer ✔✔Initial disbelief in credibility of
threat, unlike Gionet, no prior history or evidence of weapons, violence, criminal history,
answered
S. 17 applies to... - correct answer ✔✔principal offenders, likely does not include Gerry's
behavior, which better fits that of a secondary party described by s. 21(1)(b) (indirect, non-
violent, facilitation, like Gionet)
Common law defense of duress (S. 8(3)) (more flexible, less stringent) excuses... - correct
answer ✔✔parties' wrongful conduct where it is rendered morally involuntary by coercive
threats of death or grievous bodily harm
s. 8(3) applies where the accused: - correct answer ✔✔1) acts solely because of serious threats,
2) reasonably believes threats could be carried out, 3) acted reasonably and proportionately,
and 4) has no safe avenue of escape
Procedure for defence of duress: - correct answer ✔✔Based on totality of circumstances, Gerry
has evidential burden to raise an air of reality (AOR, Evidence upon which a reasonable jury
properly instructed could acquit), then Crown has persuasive burden to disprove duress in any
one element beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD), or acquittal.
Jurisdiction: - correct answer ✔✔Gionet (NB), SCC cases (Hibbert, Ruzik) are
binding/persuasive, Keller and Laughy (lower trial court) and Mena (ON) are not binding but
may guide interpretation where consistent with binding authorities
(THREAT) What are the three elements of Threat of Death/GBH - correct answer ✔✔grave
threats of death or grievous bodily harm, immediacy/temporal connection between threat and
harm threatened, acted solely as a result of threats
, (THREAT) Harley's threats were grave threats targeting personal safety: (factors) - correct
answer ✔✔Coercive context of unjust extortion (Gionet, Laughy), implicit threats of future
harm like Gionet (10, 35), surveillance and risk of multiple accomplices increases risk,
intimidating physical conduct
(THREAT) Harley's threats were temporally connected to the harm threatened: factors - correct
answer ✔✔Short time period (unlike Gionet/18 days, Keller/4 months), continuing threat of
surveillance, and Harley's presence at meeting point renews immediacy
(THREAT) Harley's threats were the sole motivation for Gerry's conduct: factors - correct answer
✔✔Gerry's quiet off-grid lifestyle, aversion to conflict, terror and disorientation, lack of financial
incentive/benefit, amplified by Harley's presence during offence (coercive)
(THREAT) Crown Counterarguments for Threats of Death/GBH: - correct answer ✔✔Threats
were too vague, indirect and nonviolent; signify financial/legal consequences; no evidence of
weapons, reputation, history; possible financial incentive
(BELIEF) AOR test for belief in credibility of threat: - correct answer ✔✔whether Harley's "acts,
conduct or words... could reasonably be construed as a threat of the required kind" and affect
Gerry's mind at time of offence (Gionet, 25)
(BELIEF) What is it that makes Gerry reasonably believe Harley's implied threats? - correct
answer ✔✔Conduct (knowledge, proximity, stepping forward, seizure of phone), implied threats
of unpleasant consequences and surveillance (Gionet, implied accepted as credible if accused
reasonably believed them), terror and compliance support genuine belief in threats' credibility
(BELIEF) What illustrates that the threat was operative at time of offence - correct answer
✔✔Second encounter, renewed threat and Harley's presence moments before the offence
(BELIEF) What are the crown counterarguments for reasonable belief? (lacked reasonable belief
in Harley's capacity to carry out threat) - correct answer ✔✔Initial disbelief in credibility of
threat, unlike Gionet, no prior history or evidence of weapons, violence, criminal history,
