More than 10,000 Canadians received a medically-assisted death in 2021: report
Quebec Superior Court suspends Bill 96’s translation requirement until constitutionality determined
The Ontario government has given Maggie an ultimatum: the disabled teen can lose her funding or her independence
FBI took 11 sets of classified material from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home while investigating possible Espionage Act violations (US)
Ontario class action settlement reclassifies volunteers as employees, setting new precedent
Availability of Judicial Review in SABS Disputes
Are masking policies still valid?
Justice Canada releases commission report on impact of lack of legal aid in family law disputes
Harmonized sales tax part of maximum amount of attendant care benefits owed by insurer: court
New rules coming next month to help Canadians with cancelled and delayed flights
Stephen King set to testify for govt in books merger trial (US)
New law program in Quebec to begin next fall, a first in 50 years
The Impact of the Lack of Legal Aid in Family Law Cases
SCC rules that when someone is required by their partner to wear a condom but do not, they could be guilty of sexual assault.
Big Plastic suing feds over single-use ban — again
Tim Hortons offers coffee and doughnut as proposed settlement in class action lawsuit
The SCC has refused to hear the appeal to declare the renewal of the state of health emergency by the Quebec government invalid
Federal privacy commissioner investigating controversial ArriveCAN app
Kraken, a U.S. Crypto Exchange, Is Suspected of Violating Sanctions (US)
Ontario court certifies class action on former patients’ anxiety from notice of risk of infection
The stakes couldn’t be higher as Canada’s top court decides whether to hear climate class action lawsuit
Professor Barnali Choudhury selected by EU as trade and sustainable development expert
The Supreme Court decision on the ‘Ghomeshi’ amendments will help sexual assault victims access justice
AFN Reaches $20 B Final Settlement Agreement to Compensate First Nations Children and Families

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes

The Supreme Court of Canada issued a major decision allowing criminal defendants in cases involving assault — including sexual assault — to use a defence known as self-induced extreme intoxication.

PHOTO: Stock
The Supreme Court of Canada has delivered what could be seen as a landmark ruling that would allowed those accused of violent crimes to use a defence known as self-induced extreme intoxication. David Akin breaks down the ruling and what it means going forward – May 13, 2022

The Supreme Court of Canada issued a major decision on Friday allowing criminal defendants in cases involving assault — including sexual assault — to use a defence known as self-induced extreme intoxication.

Effectively, it means defendants who voluntarily consume intoxicating substances and then assault or interfere with the bodily integrity of another person can avoid conviction if they can prove they were too intoxicated to control their actions.

“To deprive a person of their liberty for that involuntary conduct committed in a state akin to automatism — conduct that cannot be criminal — violates the principles of fundamental justice in a system of criminal justice based on personal responsibility for one’s actions,” wrote Justice Nicholas Kasirer in the unanimous nine-judge ruling.

Under Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, extreme intoxication — formally known as non-insane automatism — cannot be used as a defence in criminal cases where the accused voluntarily ingested the intoxicating substance.

The court’s ruling declares that section is unconstitutional.

The court found that, despite the “laudable purpose” of the criminal code provision, it runs afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is too broad.

“The legitimate goals of protecting the victims of these crimes and holding the extremely self-intoxicated accountable, compelling as they are, do not justify these infringements of the Charter that so fundamentally upset the tenets of the criminal law,” the court said in the ruling.

“With s. 33.1, Parliament has created a meaningful risk of conviction and punishment of an extremely intoxicated person who, while perhaps blameworthy in some respect, is innocent of the offence as charged according to the requirements of the Constitution.”

n a written argument presented to the court as part of its deliberations, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund had warned that allowing the defence to be used in cases of voluntary extreme intoxication would privilege “individual rights over those of vulnerable groups, including women and children who disproportionately bear the risks of intoxicated violence.”

“The harm caused to women as a result of intoxicated violence is devastating and infringes on their right to security and equality,” the group had argued in their factum.

“Holding individuals accountable for violent crimes committed in a state of self-induced intoxication is a pressing and substantial objective, given that a failure to do so excuses such violence and discourages reporting as an option for survivors.”

Automatism in Canadian law is defined as “a state of unconsciousness that renders a person incapable of consciously controlling their behaviour while in that state.”

The same definition is used to support the defence of “insane automatism,” which is what is used in criminal cases where the accused is found to be not criminally responsible.

The federal government had added the provision to the Criminal Code in 1995 specifically in recognition of concern “that self-induced intoxication may be used socially and legally to excuse violence, particularly violence against women and children.”

In the ruling, Kasirer noted that the court’s decision striking down the provision “has no impact on the rule that intoxication short of automatism is not a defence to violent crimes of general intent, such as assault or sexual assault.”

He also wrote that there are still other paths that the government can consider using to legislate around “extreme intoxicated violence.”

“The sense that an accused who acts violently in a state of extreme self‑induced intoxication is morally blameworthy is by no means beyond the proper reach of the criminal law,” he wrote.

“Protecting the victims of violent crime — particularly in light of the equality and dignity interests of women and children who are vulnerable to intoxicated sexual and domestic violence — is a pressing and substantial social purpose.”

The decision went on to provide examples of ways that the government could legislate.

For example, Kasirer suggested one approach could be “if Parliament legislated an offence of dangerous intoxication or intoxication causing harm that incorporates voluntary intoxication as an essential element.”

“Parliament may also wish to study and regulate according to the nature and properties of the intoxicant. The common effects of the intoxicant, its legality, and the circumstances in which it was obtained and consumed may be relevant to a marked departure standard.”

Attorney General and Justice Minister David Lametti said his office is assessing the decision.

“Our Government is unwavering in its commitment to ensuring that our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, respects victims, holds offenders to account, all while upholding Charter rights,” he said in a statement following the decision.

“We are carefully reviewing the decision to determine its effect on victims as well as the criminal law. It is critically important to emphasize that today’s decision does not apply to the vast majority of cases involving a person who commits a criminal offence while intoxicated.”

The court issued three rulings on self-induced extreme intoxication on Friday. The three cases involved individuals who faced criminal prosecutions after committing violence after using drugs.

One of those cases involved Thomas Chan, a Peterborough, Ont., man who was previously convicted of murdering his father in December 2015 after consuming magic mushrooms and having hallucinations.

The Supreme Court decision allows him to use the extreme intoxication defence at a new trial. Chan’s lawyers had previously sought to use the defence during his initial trial.

The main decision was the case of an Alberta man named Matthew Winston Brown who was acquitted of violently attacking a woman inside a house that he had broken into after consuming alcohol and magic mushrooms at a party in 2018.

The Crown had appealed his acquittal.

The third case involved a Whitby, Ont., man called David Sullivan.

Sullivan, the court wrote, had “voluntarily taken an overdose of a prescription drug.” While impaired, he “attacked his mother with a knife and injured her gravely.”

He was charged with multiple offences and convicted, but his lawyers appealed.


Want direct access to the latest LITN content?

Stay in the loop ➞ Subscribe to LITN instant notifications.
Receive the latest content delivered directly to your device.
Unsubscribe at anytime.

Latest News


Join the LITN Newsletter ➞ the latest news delivered to your inbox. Unsubscribe at any time.


Instagram Feed