Crim 230 Lecture Summaries
Oct 25th
True versus Regulatory
True versus regulatory crime true criminal offences carry much more severe
punishment/stigma
Regulatory offence deals with lawful activities that are regulated if you did it,
you’re liable (absolute liability), all crown had to prove is the actus rea
BUT after 1978, “the halfway house approach”, which gives a little bit of
consideration to the intent, so now some offences are absolute liability, and some
are strict liability
Cannabis is still regulated, and certain acts still constitute a crime under the
Cannabis Act (illegal distribution, taking cannabis across Canada), and some are
just regulatory
Due diligence defence- mistake of law or accused can prove on the balance of
probabilities that they were not negligent (took all reasons steps/precautions) Is
based on objective standard, and requires consideration of what a reasonable
person would have done
first onus of proof is on Crown, and then second onus of proof is on accused
(this is an issue, because you are guilty until proven guilty. But court held that it is
constitutional)
3 Categories of Offences
True Crime- BARD – defence of MR or AR
Strict Liability Offence – BARD- no proof required (unless mistake of law, or due
diligence defence)
Absolute Liability Offence- BARD- no proof required
Absolute or Strict? 4 Determining Factors
1) Overall regulatory pattern/legislative scheme
2) Subject matter of the legislation
3) Gravity of penalty (serious consequences suggest strict liability, if
imprisonment may be a punishment it CANNOT be absolute)
4) Precise language used in the offence creating section
, Nov 1st
Serious consequences suggest strict liability.
Inchoate Offences- an incomplete crime or something that has failed (attempt,
conspiracy, counselling).
Conspiracy:
- Basic rule of conspiracy is the actus reus is an agreement to carry out the
completed offence.
- Has 3 separate elements (agreement for common purpose, agreement
between at least 2 persons, agreement to commit a crime)
unsuccessful attempt of conspiracy may be an offence counselling a crime
that is not committed
Counselling:
- 2 forms (completed, not completed)
The mens rea is the most important part for inchoate offences, because actus
rues will not include the completed crime
*No such thing as attempted manslaughter, because manslaughter is not intended.
Canada does not hold people liable for attempts in recklessness or wilful
blindness.
An accused can be convicted of an attempt even if it was a factually/legally
impossible to commit the crime
only circumstance where impossibility can be a defence is imaginary crime
Nov 8th
In order to find someone guilty of conspiracy, the Crown has to prove so little.
Debate on whether it is fair to hold all equally accountable for an offence?
if the accomplice encourages or assists the principle, they authorize the party to
commit offence on their behalf too and generate their own liability
they are punished because they are a cause of the harm
Aiding (S21)- A) the accused person actively rendered assistance to the person
who actually committed the offence (actus reus)
B) Intended to provide such assistance (mens rea)
Oct 25th
True versus Regulatory
True versus regulatory crime true criminal offences carry much more severe
punishment/stigma
Regulatory offence deals with lawful activities that are regulated if you did it,
you’re liable (absolute liability), all crown had to prove is the actus rea
BUT after 1978, “the halfway house approach”, which gives a little bit of
consideration to the intent, so now some offences are absolute liability, and some
are strict liability
Cannabis is still regulated, and certain acts still constitute a crime under the
Cannabis Act (illegal distribution, taking cannabis across Canada), and some are
just regulatory
Due diligence defence- mistake of law or accused can prove on the balance of
probabilities that they were not negligent (took all reasons steps/precautions) Is
based on objective standard, and requires consideration of what a reasonable
person would have done
first onus of proof is on Crown, and then second onus of proof is on accused
(this is an issue, because you are guilty until proven guilty. But court held that it is
constitutional)
3 Categories of Offences
True Crime- BARD – defence of MR or AR
Strict Liability Offence – BARD- no proof required (unless mistake of law, or due
diligence defence)
Absolute Liability Offence- BARD- no proof required
Absolute or Strict? 4 Determining Factors
1) Overall regulatory pattern/legislative scheme
2) Subject matter of the legislation
3) Gravity of penalty (serious consequences suggest strict liability, if
imprisonment may be a punishment it CANNOT be absolute)
4) Precise language used in the offence creating section
, Nov 1st
Serious consequences suggest strict liability.
Inchoate Offences- an incomplete crime or something that has failed (attempt,
conspiracy, counselling).
Conspiracy:
- Basic rule of conspiracy is the actus reus is an agreement to carry out the
completed offence.
- Has 3 separate elements (agreement for common purpose, agreement
between at least 2 persons, agreement to commit a crime)
unsuccessful attempt of conspiracy may be an offence counselling a crime
that is not committed
Counselling:
- 2 forms (completed, not completed)
The mens rea is the most important part for inchoate offences, because actus
rues will not include the completed crime
*No such thing as attempted manslaughter, because manslaughter is not intended.
Canada does not hold people liable for attempts in recklessness or wilful
blindness.
An accused can be convicted of an attempt even if it was a factually/legally
impossible to commit the crime
only circumstance where impossibility can be a defence is imaginary crime
Nov 8th
In order to find someone guilty of conspiracy, the Crown has to prove so little.
Debate on whether it is fair to hold all equally accountable for an offence?
if the accomplice encourages or assists the principle, they authorize the party to
commit offence on their behalf too and generate their own liability
they are punished because they are a cause of the harm
Aiding (S21)- A) the accused person actively rendered assistance to the person
who actually committed the offence (actus reus)
B) Intended to provide such assistance (mens rea)
