1.

Crime Defined
s “A wrong against society”
(If I attack Zack or Jack how is that a wrong against society?)

s “Any act or omission (?) of an act that is prohibited

and punishable by (federal) law”

s Crime changes with time (along with society’s

values) and place
 2. Criminal Law Defined
s “The body of laws that prohibit and punish acts that
injure people, property, and society as a whole”
s In other words, when a thief steals a MAC from an
Apple Store, not only is the storeowner affected.
Consumers will end up paying more for less, which
would have an effect on the economic environment
and carry through to the rest of society. Undeterred,
Crime Creates Chaos and Fear.
s Because crime affects society as a whole, it becomes
the government’s responsibility to deter it.
The main purposes of criminal
law are to:
s protect people and property
s maintain order, deterence
s preserve standards of public decency
 3. The Criminal Code
s federal statute

s lists offences, sentences, procedures (and other

bodies of law)

s amended by Parliament to reflect Canada’s

changing values
 A Brief History
s Before Confederation (1867), each
province responsible for own criminal
laws.
s Other than Quebec, law system was
adopted from Britain, and courts relied
on British statutes and precedents.
s BNA Act 1867, granted federal
government “power to exercise legal
authority” (aka- J___________?) to
make criminal law in Canada.
 A Brief History cont’d
s Since its conception, it has been
amended almost every year.
s In 1955, it was “simplified” from 1100 to
753 sections.
s In 1986, there was an attempt to
overhaul and re-organise the Code, but
it failed to pass through Parliament. As
a result, there has never been a
complete revision since its passage in
1892.
A Brief History (cont’d)
s The Criminal Code does not cover all crimes as was
originally intended. Other federal laws are contained
in the Code (for examples):
s Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CD)
s Customs Act
s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes
Act
s Youth Criminal Justice Act (YC)
s Food and Drug Act (FD)
s Income Tax Act
 Whose jurisdiction?
s Federal government has exclusive
jurisdiction for developing and revising
Criminal Law for all of Canada.
s Administering criminal law system is
shared between feds and provinces.
s Provincial government appoints judges
and finances/ administers its own
provincial court system (handling the
majority of criminal cases).
Provincial Jurisdiction
s Provinces can pass laws within own
jurisdiction, ie. regulations.
s Provincial law (and municipal by-laws)
are not considered true crime,
s called quasi-criminal; less serious, most
often punished by fines.
s these laws differ according to the
needs/ demands of each province (or
municipality).
 Burden of Proof?
Legal Rights
= Innocent until proven guilty
= Right to Remain Silent (not self-incriminate)
Since the Government represents Society it is their
responsibility to make and enforce criminal law and to prove
that the accused person committed a crime.

In turn, Government is represented by Crown prosecutors in

court. It is the Crown’s “burden” to prove a case.
Criminal cases are cited as R v. the Accused,
where R = Rex or Regina (Monarchy)

NOTE: The Accused is represented by Defence attorneys

Let’s crack open this
codified book…
Title Page…

< Publisher
Turn the page…record the
publication date

<date
of
publication
Table of Contents…
XXVIII=28 Parts
Table of Cases

OOPS!
CE=?, CH=?
Search by Sections NOT page#s
(at top of each page)
 4. Elements of a Crime
(the burden of proof)
s In Canada, in order to convict a person of a criminal offence,
the prosecution (Crown; R v. A.B.) usually must prove that
two elements existed at the time the offence was
committed; the act itself (ACTUS REUS, or “guilty act”) and
the intention behind the act (MENS REA, or “guilty mind”).
s If one or the other element of a crime cannot be proved,
then the accused cannot be found guilty of that crime.

s Crown must prove beyond

beyond reasonable doubt.
(99%) .
 A. The Actus Reus
There are 3 Types:
1. A Guilty Action or Physical Act
2. An Act of Omission
3. The “State-of-Being”
 1. Guilty Action
s Refers to the physical act involved in committing a
criminal offence (ie. one that-
a) harms or causes loss to person(s) or
b) damage to property).
Example: Assault
 1. Guilty Action (cont’d)
s For example: the definition of assault (s.265(1) is
“…when, without consent of another person, s/he
applies force intentionally to that person, directly or
indirectly;”
The actus reus is “applies force” (to a person)- A VERB!!!
 Assault continued…
How can one apply force “indirectly” (examples??)?

s Note: the Mens Rea is “intentionally” -An ADVERB!

s MR may also include (it is implied) “knowing” that consent
was not given. Note: one cannot consent to being killed
(with the exception of?...Think: Charter Right)
 2. Act of Omission
s Sometimes failing to act can be deemed a crime. For
example, child neglect, or not abiding by the “rules
of the road”. (see: MacGillivray p144)

s Even turning a blind eye to a crime being committed

or an officer of the law in need of assistance can lead
to charges under the Code.
s.249 (4)
Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle

The captain of the Costa Concordia, Francesco

Schettino was found guilty of manslaughter in
2016 and sentenced to 16 years in prison.
Francesco Schettino was given 10 years for
multiple manslaughters, 5 years for causing a
shipwreck, and 1 year for abandoning the
passengers at the time of the sinking. Jul 22, 2021

MANSLAUGHTER IS UNINTENTIONALLY KILLING

NOTE: These are NOT Guilty Acts
s Actus reus must be voluntary, not forced by
another person.
s Similarly, if Sleepy SHERRY was sleepwalking
(aka. Parasomnia) when she punched Sleepy
STELLA, the actus reus would not apply, since
Sherry had no control over her actions in that
state. (Note: the mens rea would also not
apply since there is no awareness)
s Finally, a reflexive action (Happy HELEN
sneezes, trips, accidentally bumps Tiny TINA,
who falls down the stairs…) is not a voluntary
act; not a crime, but a tragic accident.
 3. State of Being
s Sometimes a person can commit a crime, but neither
acts or omits to act. (Whaaat??)

s For example: Possession or Loitering). If you are in

possession of an illegal narcotic or an unregistered
firearm, or stolen goods, you are not technically
“acting”, but you have still committed a crime.

s Similarly, someone who is loitering (which isn’t a

crime, really) is potentially “up to no good”.

s Other example: trespassing-

being on someone else’s
property without permission
 B. The Mens Rea
s The second element that, in most cases, must be proved
along with the actus reus (and happen at the same time)

s Defined as: “a deliberate intention to commit a wrongful

act, with reckless disregard for the consequences”.

s It implies moral guilt- deliberately doing (or omitting to do)

something, knowing it is wrong, and/or without caring
what the consequences might be.

s There can be more than

one MR involved in an
offence.

s Look for ADVERBS!!!

s (see: Father Jailed p146)

 The Mens Rea
s Depending on the crime in question, there are three types of
mental states (or mindsets):

s intention (ie. Purposefully/ voluntarily causing the

wrongful consequence)

s recklessness
s knowledge (of the circumstances)
s In other words, the Crown can establish mens rea by showing
that the accused had the intent to commit an offence and/or
knowledge that what s/he did was unlawful, and/or was
reckless with regard to their conduct.
Mens Rea continued

1. Intent:
s Defined as: “state of mind in which someone desires
to carry out a wrongful act, (knows what the results
will be, and is reckless regarding the consequences)”.

s Criminal Code describes offences using words such

as wilfully, deliberately or intentionally.

s Note: if mens rea needs to be established, then

offence definitions require words such as wilfully or
with intent. If not included, then one can assume
mens rea is not required. (see: strict liability below)
 Intent vs. Motive
s Intent needs to be established to prove the Mens Rea.
For certain offences it can make a huge difference!
s Ex/ Murder is intentional and carries a life sentence. If intent can
not be established the accused could be charged with the lesser
offence (and sentence) of Manslaughter (unintentional homicide)

s Note that Motive is the “reason” behind the intent. If I hit

George (again ;)), my intent was to hit him, my motive was
that he insulted my wife. Motive explains the intent but it
does not need to be established to prove the MR. It may
however influence the judge’s sentence.
 Mens Rea continued
General Intent:
s Defined as: desire to commit a wrongful act, with no
ulterior motive or purpose.

s Ex. Assault- 265. a. “…without the consent of

another person, [s/he] applies force intentionally to
that person, (directly or indirectly);…”.
(Q. How may consent be related to the mens rea?)
 Mens Rea (yadayada)
Specific Intent:
s Defined as: desire to commit one wrongful act for
the sake of accomplishing another (criminal act).
s Ex. Perjury- (knowingly) providing false statements
in court with intent to mislead/ affect outcome of
the trial.

s Ex. Robbery- 343. c. “assaults a person with intent to

steal from [him]; or d. steals…while armed…”
 Distinctions between the two:
s general intent is easier to prove
(which partly explains why the Crown decides to
prosecute for manslaughter; unplanned or
unintentional homicide, vs. murder; planned/
deliberate homicide).
s Often times the actus reus shows the mens rea,
going back to assault as an example…
s certain defences are more likely to
succeed against specific intent
offences.

see: Hebert pg.148

 2. Recklessness
s Defined as: consciously
taking an unjustifiable risk
that a reasonable person
would not take.
s People are said to be reckless when
they can (or should be able to) see
that the consequences of their
conduct may be harmful, but
decide to take an unjustifiable risk
anyway.

s Generally, recklessness describes

acts where there is potential for
harm.

s Ex. Dangerous Operation of a Motor

Vehicle.
 Ex/ Criminal Negligence
s More serious than mere recklessness,
Criminal Negligence s.219(1) is defined as:
“Everyone who (a) in doing anything, or (b)
in omitting to do anything that is his (legal)
duty to do, shows wanton or reckless
disregard for lives and safety of others.”

s For example: a person speeding or DUI who hits

and kills a pedestrian, can be charged with
criminal negligence, or dangerous operation of a
motor vehicle, (causing death).

s For example: a person, leaving a firearm on bed

for a child to find, who shoots and maims
another child. Or (see: Father Jailed… p146).

s Recklessness is a type of MR, Criminal

negligence is an example of recklessness
where harm has occurred
 3. Knowledge
s Defined as: an awareness of certain facts that can be used to establish
mens rea.

s For example: s.368(1)(a) states “everyone who, knowing that a

document is forged, uses, deals, or acts upon it” is guilty of the offence
of circulating a forged document.

s To establish guilt, Crown only must show that accused knew the
document was forged. Crown does not need to establish defendant’s
intent (general or specific), in this case.

s For example: perjury- knowingly giving false evidence during a trial

(with intent to mislead).

s (see: Adey p149)

Note: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW (ie. claiming that you

thought your conduct was legal) is no excuse.

 Knowledge
(cont’d):
Wilful Blindness
s Defined as: a deliberate “closing of one’s mind” to the possible
consequences of one’s actions. IOW, when you are aware of the need to
make an inquiry but intentionally fail to do so, you may end up
committing a crime. CROWN must prove that this is the case.
s For example: (3am/ in a dark alley) Harry offers to sell Jerry a TV at “an
unbeatable price”. On the side of the TV is spray painted: “Property of
Point Grey”. Jerry buys the TV anyway. He is being wilfully blind to the
fact that the TV was stolen.
s Jerry claims that he did not “know that the TV was stolen”. Crown
would have to show that the accused was willfully blind by failing to
see obvious signs that a reasonable person could have seen in the same
circumstance. (time/ location/ unusually low price/ “property of PG”)

s (REASONABLE PERSON TEST) p149 R v Adey

Criminal Dissection Activity
If this was an English grammar lesson then…
1. The Actus Reus would be the verb (red) and…
2. The Mens Rea would be the adverb (blue).
Ex/ See the dog eagerly chase the postal worker.
Ex/ Mia deliberately pushed Parya down the stairs with
the intention to steal Parya’s expensive Versace dress.
(Q/ General or Specific Intent?) (Q/ type of offence?)
Ex/ Intentionally applying force to another person
without consent, directly or indirectly. (Q/ type of
offence?)
 No Mens Rea Required
Liability Offences
s Liabilty is defined as: legal responsibility for a wrongful action.
One is said to be liable if this is the case.

s Currently there are 20000+ federal offences and 20000+

provincial offences that do not require mens rea to win a
conviction.

s Many of these are what the law considers “quasi-criminal”.

 Strict Liability Offences
Defined as: mostly regulations that are used for the protection
of public health, welfare, or safety.
For example:

s provincial traffic laws

s laws under the Food and Drugs Act

s laws protecting workers

s environmental protection laws

s hunting (animals; not humans!! )

and fishing regulations

s For strict liability offences, the accused acknowledges that

the offence took place but then uses the defence of
Due Diligence, meaning that the accused took every
reasonable precaution to avoid committing the offence in
question.
 Absolute Liability Offences
s Defined as: offences that do not require mens rea and to
which the accused can offer no defence. Because no defence
is possible once facts are established, Supreme Court has
ruled that absolute liability can not carry prison sentences,
(usually only fines).
s For examples:

s driving without
a licence

s exceeding the
speed limit
 5. Criminal Involvement
Sometimes there are more than one guilty parties to crime…

Reservoir Dogs

The Perpetrator or Principle Actor(s)

s Defined as: the person who actually commits the
crime
s Called: co-perpetrators when more than one person
directly involved in the crime.
s Note: In every case, perpetrator(s) must be present
at the scene of the offence.
 Parties to an Offence:
How Involved (in the Crime)?
s Parties to an Offence defined: people indirectly
involved in the crime, by assisting the perpetrator. They do
not need to be present at the crime scene.
s From LEAST to MOST INVOLVED:

1. Abettor
2. Aider (technically also an abettor)
3. Counsellor (above and beyond A & A!)
s NOT INVOLVED but still assisting after the crime was
committed :

4. Accessory (After the Fact)

 The Aiders and Abettors
s Aiding means: providing physical assistance/ helping
the perpetrator.

s To Aid, one does not need to be present when

offence committed.
s Abetting means: encouraging
the perpetrator to commit an
offence (without providing
physical assistance).
s On the surface, abetting may
appear less serious than
aiding. Depends on the
circumstances!
s Note: one is not necessarily aiding and/or
abetting just because s/he has knowledge
of a crime or is present at the scene. The
party must be aware that a criminal
action was intended and/or must
commit some action to assist the
perpetrator.
s Also Note: being at a scene of a crime
can be used as evidence of A’n’A.
if accompanied with other factors,
such as prior knowledge.
 Criminal Involvement
Counselling
s Defined as: advising, recommending,
or persuading another person to
commit a criminal offence.
s To Counsel, one need not be present
when offence committed to be found
guilty of counselling.

Accessory After the Fact

s Defined as: someone who knowingly
“receives, comforts, or assists” a
perpetrator in escaping from the law
after a crime has been committed.
 Criminal Involvement
s Party to Common Intention
s Defined as: shared responsibility among criminals for any
additional offences that are committed in the course of
the crime they originally intended to commit.

s This means that the initial participants can be charged

with the subsequent crimes even if they were not directly
involved in them.
An incomplete crime can
still be a crime!
 6. Criminal Involvement
Incomplete Crimes
Sometimes crimes may not have been taken to their completion.
This means that the actus reus is technically missing.

Parties to incomplete crimes can still be found guilty of an

attempted crime.

s Two major types:

s Attempt
s Conspiracy
MR. MEY IS CERTAIN THAT HIS
WIFE IS HAVING AN AFFAIR…
s IF I TELL THE CLASS MY PLANS TO KILL MY WIFE
(and the Avalon milk delivery truck driver)
HAVE I ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT A CRIME?

s HOW FAR MUST I GO FOR IT TO BE ONE?

 ATTEMPT
s Note: An attempt is an incomplete crime where
the actus reus is missing. An attempt does
require action, and technically the act begins
when preparation is put into action.
s To be charged with an attempted offence, the
accused must do more than just prepare for it;
s/he must take deliberate steps to commit the
crime. These steps can be viewed as the Actus
Reus for an attempted crime.
s NOTE- Usually, the accused must commit a criminal act
or omission directly connected to the crime in question.
Ex/ if accused shoots victim multiple times but s/he
survives then this would be an attempted murder.
For example, if someone contacts a “hit-man”, this may not be
considered enough “steps” to convict for an attempted crime.
However, if this same person meets with the “hit-man”, plans
and exchanges money, etc., this could be further DELIBERATE
STEPS, BUT is still not be enough evidence to charge someone
for an attempted crime. The “hit man” would literally have to be
caught at the scene about to do the “job”.
Remember Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan?

Tonya Harding 'Was Involved Up to

Her Neck' in Nancy Kerrigan Attack
That said…If two people make a sincere and
mutual agreement to commit a crime…
 This is called a Conspiracy
s A mutual and sincere agreement between two or more
parties to commit a crime.

s If one of the accused never planned to follow through or

has a change of heart, then was there a mutual or sincere
agreement? (NO)
s NOTE! Unlike an attempted crime (which virtually requires
the police to capture suspect(s) about to commit the act),
with conspiracy planning does take place, but less
deliberate steps are required.

That’s All Folks!