Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law in Canada > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

R v King (1962) SCC

A
  • King was injected with a sedative by a dentist
  • Dentist tells King doesn’t hear
  • King loses consciousness while driving, gets into an accident
  • Important to AR
  • King is drugged
  • King does not know he is drugged
  • no willing mind

Outcome:
- acquitted on appeal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Shaw (1938) ONCA

A
  • Shaw is subject to a sudden attack of fainting
  • Has been treated for epilepsy in the past
  • When applying for license did not divulge epilepsy
  • Faints while driving kills 2 and injures 3

Important to AR
- Shaw fainted while driving
- Shaw knew he might faint

Outcome:
- convicted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Smithers v The Queen [1978] SCC

A

SMITHERS IS THE ACCUSED, COBBY WHO IS THE VICTIM

  • The trade insults Smithers pushes Cobby’s head, Smithers gets one last kick at Cobby to the stomach struggling to breathe
  • Cobby suffocates on his own vomit and dies - - Smithers attacks Cobby but doesn’t know his health condition
  • SCC says that the kick caused Cobby to vomit, the vomiting caused the suffocation, and the suffocation caused the death
  • Smithers is charged with Manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Nette [2001] SCC

A
  • the accused breaks into and elderly ladys home and ties her to the bed
  • They rob the house leaving the women, where after 48hours she suffocated and dies
  • Nette test: The accused’s conduct must constitute a “significant contributing cause”
  • All criminal charges involving homicide.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Harbottle [1993] SCC

A
  • The accused and a partner work together to sexually assault a girl and kill them
  • harbottle that held her down and the other strangled
  • The accused is charged with first-degree murder

-Harbottle test: The accused’s conduct must constitute a “substantial and integral cause”
Applies in cases of first degree murder (s.231(5))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Winning [1973] ONCA

A
  • The accused obtained credit from T Eaton Co based on false pretences
  • S.362 (1) False pretence or false statement: Everyone commits an offence who (b) obtains credit by false pretence or by fraud
  • Conduct- is to obtain credit
  • Circumstances- By false pretences
  • Consequences- are that Eatonds provided credit
    Because Eaton was not using false information, it can not be a fraud
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Trakas (2008) ONCA

A
  • Trakas is tricked when an individual comes to test drive his motorcycle
  • Trakas part takes in a dangerous car chase after the thief
  • A Police officer steps into the roadway and is killed by Trakas
  • acquitted because any reasonable person would do that
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Kitching and Adams (1976)

A
  • The doctor intercepted the chain of causation
  • Kitching & Adams drop junor on the sidewalk
  • Doctors removes Junor from life support and removes his kidneys for transplant
  • Jounor dies
  • Kitching and Adam inflicted severe injuries on Junor when they dropped him, repeatedly on a sidewalk while he was extremely intoxicated.
  • Junior suffered extreme brain damage and was put on a respirator
  • Doctors removed Junor’s kidney for transplant and then turned off life support
    There is one cause of death
  • Both Kitching and Adam and the doctor are responsible for the death
  • The doctor is not liable because it was legal to take his organs
  • When a doctor takes someone on life support, that is not an intervention

Result:
- Kitchens and Adams are guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Maybin (2012)

A
  • Timothy and Matthew Maybin were playing pool - when a person came up to their table and moved some of the balls
  • The Maybin brothers punched the person until they fell unconscious on the pool table
  • someone told the victim had started the fight, a bouncer came to the table and punched the victim, taking him outside the bar
  • The victim died from his head injuries
  • the brothers charged with manslaughter
  • The bouncer hit the victim to control the fight
  • When a bouncer gets involved, it is reasonably foreseeable
    SCC
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Younger (2004) MACA

A
  • The accused leaves their 2 ½-year-old son in a car when its -2 degrees
  • Son dies from hypothermia
  • Did the accused cause the death of the son?
  • The boy died from the cold
  • It was reasonably foreseeable that this act could have been prevented
  • Charged with first-degree murder (forseeable to not leave a 2 year old in a car in the cold)

Factual Causation: BUT for the actions of the accused, the son would still be alive (Winning)

Legal Causation: was the death of the son reasonably foreseeable?

Consider: Winnipeg in the winter is very cold
- Every year, people die from hypothermia in Winnipeg.
- The victim was 2.5 y-o and could not help himself.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Nodrick 2012 MACA

A
  • In June 2003, the accused drove the victims car to a field, took his identification and left him there
  • The victim was 65 years old frail and diabetic
  • The field was 500 m from a farmhouse and gold course
  • The victim died from exposure to the element
  • acquitted because unlike younger the adult was left in a warm sunny place, only died because he was diabetic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Jordan 1956

A
  • Accused stabs the victim during a “disturbance” in a café
  • Taken to hospital where the wound had begun to heal
  • To prevent infection, given Terramycin to which the accused was allergic
  • Despite having a bad reaction, the victim is given the medication repeatedly
  • Victim dies
  • Jordan stabs victims -> vicitms receive
  • Terramycin -> Victim dies
  • The stab wound was mainly healed at the time of death.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Smith (1959) UK

A
  • During a fight on a military base, the accused stabbed three people with a bayonet.
  • When one victim is taken to the hospital he is dropped twice
  • The victim was not given saline solution, they could not perform a blood transfusion and gave him artificial respiration when his lung had collapsed
  • Victim died
  • Smith was convicted
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Holland (1841) UK

A
  • Accused cuts victim during an attack
  • Victim refuses amputation and eventually is killed by an infection
  • accused held responsible
  • Justice Maule “[I]t made no difference whether the wound was in its own nature instantly mortal, or whether it became the cause of death by reason of the deceased not having adopted the best mode of treatment, the real question is, whether in the end the wound inflicted by the prisoner was the cause of death.”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Powder (1981) ABCA

A
  • The accused broke into a house
  • The homeowner confronts the accused for the break-in and they struggle
  • Homeowner dies from acute heart failure cause by fear and emotional stress from the break in
  • Court acquits (not guilty) based on s.228
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Rusland (1992)

A
  • The accused physically assaulted a 66 year old man
  • Man dies from heart failure
  • The victim had suffered a heart attack a few months earlier and was awaiting bypass surgery
  • Rusland knew about the victims health conditions
  • Rusland is convicted

How is Rusland Different from Powder?
Rusland knew of the victims health conditions - criminal negliegnce
Commited a unlawful act of assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v Buzzange and Durocher (1979) ONCA

A
  • Circulated pamphlets to motivate people to protest changes to a French language school
  • Pamphlets appeared to be from the opposing side.

Did the accused “willfully promote hatred”?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v Wilkins (1965) ONCA

A
  • Accused takes police officer’s motorcycle for a ride around the parking lot “as a joke”.
  • acquitted, no intent of theft
  • J. Roach, “In the instant case the facts could not possibly justify a conviction of theft. The accused did not intend to steal the vehicle, that is, to convert the property in it to his own use but only to drive it… his intention was merely to play a joke on Nichol [the officer] and the [trial] Judge so found. The intention to perpetrate this joke, stupid though it was, is incompatible with the evil intent which is inherent in the crime of theft.” (79)
    Intention + acting fraudulently
19
Q

R v Droste (1984) SCC

A
  • The accused intended to kill his wife by leaving her in the car when it was on fire.
  • The car caught on fire when the kids were inside, and the kids dead
  • Charged with first-degree murder of children want to kill wife to collect insurance money
  • Droste did not intend to kill his children, but by intending to kill his wife, his intentions are transfered to the children who dead
  • He planned the murdered and intended to do so - first-degree
  • If it was a dog it would not transfer
20
Q

Vandergraad (1994) Man Ca

A
  • The accused attempts to throw peanut butter jar onto the ice, instead hits the victim in the head.
  • Accused was at a hockey arean, his team lost
  • His intention was to cause damge to the property, but hits a person
  • Transferred intent is not useable in this case because you cant transfer an object to a human
21
Q

R v Brain (2003)

A
  • The accused set fire to a store unit hut, but denied he did so intentionally.
  • However, he did admit he had been smoking cigarettes and may have discarded some cigarette butts into a cardboard container
  • charged with arson
22
Q

R v Briscoe (2010)

A

4 people lured victim & friend into a car driven by B
They were taking them to a party, instead B drove to a deserted gold course
The golf course, B open the trunk, handed out weapons, everyone but B whet into the golf cousre
B latter rejoin the group, watched as victims was murdered

23
Q

R v Matineau

A
  • Martineau and friend - Tremblay are armed with pellet pistol & rifile
  • Martineau testifies: he though it would only be a “B &E”
  • Martineau and Tremblay rob a trailer and it occupants, and then Tremblay kills them
  • Martineau is convicted of second degree murder under s.230
  • This case made s.230 no longer valid
  • Martienau knew they were going to commit a crime
  • Treblmey kill the victim, but Martienau did not think of killing

[– Subjective forsight of death means - 1. what the indivudla themsleves id thinking in their head ; 2. Possible knowing the death could occur

24
Q

R v Hundal

A
  • Accused drives overloaded dump truck into an intersection moments after the light turns red. Another driver enters as the light turns green. - Accused collides with the vehicle and kills the driver.
  • Entered the intersection “at least one second after the amber light had turned to red.” Hundal argued he could not have stopped.
  • TEST: Did accused’s conduct constitute a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver in these particular circumstances?
  • This is a marked departure when driving a heavy vehicle downtown and not being careful
25
Q

R v Beatty

A
  • For no apparent reason, Beatty’s car crossed the double solid center line and crashed into an oncoming vehicle, killing all three of its occupants.
  • Beatty could not remember what happened, perhaps lost c onsciousness.
  • Would have taken 0.00268 secs for Beatty’s car to cross the line and hit the victims’ car.

Beatty is acquitted. Why?
- Betty had heat stroke
- Betty was acquitted because he had heat strock that thinking he would have it; the people behind him saw his driving to be reasonable before
- The actions are not the product of his will, therefore you cant charger him

26
Q

Tayfel (2009) Man CA

A
  • Pilot ignores regulations and runs out of fuel.
  • Must perform emergency landing.
  • This causes one death and many serious injuries among the passengers.

Conviction for Criminal Negligence causing death set aside > did not meet the high threshold of being a marked and substantial departure.
They chose to not put enough fual knowing they should

27
Q

R v Tutton (1989) SCC

A
  • The Tutton parents were deeply religious.
  • In April 1979 the family doctor diagnosed their 5-y-o son Christopher as diabetic.
  • On Oct 2, 1980 Mrs. Tutton stopped giving Christopher insulin.
  • Christopher was taken to hospital and put back on insulin.
  • On Oct 14, 1981 Mrs. Tutton stopped the injections again. Oct 17
  • Christopher was taken to hospital and pronounced dead.
  • They use the penalty of manslaughter for this charge
28
Q

R v Dunlop and Sylvester (1979) SCC***

A
  • 16-y-o sexually assaulted by 18 members of a motorcycle club.
  • Dunlop and Sylvester claimed they had been there just to provide beer; not involved with the assault.
  • found guilty because they aided and abetted the assault
29
Q

R v Dooley (2009) ONCA

A
  • both father and step mother of 7 year old boy were physically abusing him
  • child died within 24 ours of infliction of head injury
  • father and stepmother both blame each other
  • both charged with 2nd degree murder because they were abetting each other
30
Q

R v Gauthier (2013) SCC ***

A
  • Cathy and her husband made a plan to kill themselves and their children
  • they planned to put a drug into a pitcher of juice and have everyone drink from it
  • Cathy brought the drugs
  • then Cathy changed her mind and said she didn’t want to of through with the plan
  • family sat down to watch a movie together, when Cathy woke up her children and husband were dead
  • convicted of 1st degree murder
31
Q

R v Soloway (1975)**

A
  • victim invited to Solway’s home by mrs. daniels
  • victim falls asleep on couch. Mrs.D takes his wallet
  • when Mrs. D see there is no money, S tells her to keep it
  • TJ convicted S as party to theft based on counselling Mrs. D kept the wallet
  • it was only due to S’s advice that Mrs. D kept the wallet
32
Q

R v Duong (1998) ONCA***

A
  • two people were killed, TV reports connected Lam to the homicides
  • Lam called Duong and asked to stay with him
  • accused knew lam was in trouble
  • accused let lam stay for approximately 2 weeks before he was discovered by police
  • accessary after the fact
33
Q

R v Hamilton (2005) SCC**

A
  • Hamilton sold computer files and documents
  • some of these files included information on how to build a bomb and break into a house
  • Hamilton did not read the files and did not know what was in them
  • Hamilton did try out the credit card program, but never used the numbers generated
34
Q

R v Cline (1956) ONCA

A
  • cline approached Peter C and asked him to carry his suitcase. Peter said no and went on his way
  • cline was charged with attempt to commit the offence of indecent assault
35
Q

R v Maillot (1996) **

A
  • maillot met plain clothes office at a park. They talk.
  • during the conversation Maillot asks if the officer wants to “see him” the officer does not respond
  • maillot takes off his clothes. The officer arrests him
  • acquitted
36
Q

R v Jobidon (1991) SCC

A
  • Jobidon and Haggart get into a fight in a hotel bar. They decide to “settle their differences” in the parking lot.
  • Jobidon strikes first and hits as hard as he can. Haggart falls back onto a car.
  • After a few more hits Haggart falls to the ground clearly unconscious.
  • Haggart is taken to hospital in a coma and later dies.
  • Jobidon is charged with manslaughter.
37
Q

R v mabior (2012) SCC

A
  • Mabior was HIV positive with a low viral load. He had sex with several women (9). He did not tell the women he was HIV positive and he sometimes did, and sometimes did not use a condom
  • None of the complainants to sex, however, was this consent eliminated through fraud?
  • Courts undecided
  • No one caught HIV therefor there was no transmition
38
Q

R v Sansregret (1985) SCC

A
  • Sansregret broke into the house of the complaint and terrorized her. To calm him down she offered they might reconcile. They later had sex
  • The complainant reported the incident to the police. Case dropped by request of the accused’s probation officer
  • 1 month later, Sansregret returns and does the same thing. Again the complainant calms the accused with promises of reconciliation, and they have sex. This time the police lay charges.
  • The complainant testifies she did not consent, but Sansregret says he did not know she did not consent.
  • guilty - no consent
39
Q

R v Ewanchuck [1998] SCC

A
  • The complainant goes to an interview that is in the back of a large van
  • During the interview, the accused makes several sexual advances
  • Each time he take action, the complainant tells him no, and he stops for a while
  • After the interview the complainant reports the accused. She testifies that she was scared and felt trapped in the van
  • The accused claims that he believes the complainant consent because she did not leave the van
  • He stopped everytime he was asked to
  • The victim didn’t leave because she was scared and trapped
  • The accused thought that why didn’t she leave, he stopped when asked, why am I being charged
40
Q

Vincent Li

A
  • Vincent Li attacked passengers on a Greyhound bus. He stabbed and beheaded the victim, and then ate some of the victim.
  • At trial Li is found NCRMD.
    o At the time of the attack Li was acting under the influence of schizophrenia. He was hearing voices that told him that the victim was an alien and that God wanted the alien to be executed.
  • In 2009 Li was ordered to be held in custody at a hospital where he was treated for his mental health condition.
  • In 2013 his psychiatrist indicated that Li had stopped having hallucinations and was ready for more “escorted passes into the community.”
  • In 2017 Li granted an absolute discharge.
41
Q

R v Parks (1992) SCC

A
  • drives across town and kills mother in law and injures father in law
  • charged with 1st degree and attempted murder
  • non insane automatism
42
Q

R v Luedecke (2008) ONCA

A
  • Complainant went to a house party. Fell asleep on the couch.
  • Accused falls asleep close by.
  • Complainant awakes to the Accused trying to have sex with her.
  • Later on the accused hears the police are investigating a sexual assault. He tells the officer, “I think I am the perpetrator”
  • Instead of murder it is sexual assault
  • The accused has no idea what they did but confessed because they think they are in the wrong
  • sexsomnia is not a mental disorder
  • acquitted because he acted while in a dissociative state
43
Q

R v Stone (1999) SCC

A
  • Mrs. Stone attacked and taunted Mr. Stone as he was driving.
  • Mr. Stone pulled the car to the side of the road and put his head down. He testified that he blacked out and felt a “whoosh” go through his body.
  • When Mr. Stone came to, he had stabbed Mrs. Stone 47 times with a hunting knife.
  • During the drive the wife created an explosive situation, wife waits in the car and verbally abuses him, pulls into a empty parking lot, wife tells him that she went to the police and told them he has been abusing her and they are out to get him, Mr. stone blacked out and when he came to he stabbed her with a knife kept in the car
  • Court did not think he could be so psychologically hurt and still black out and kill someone - can use non-insane automatism

Criminal Law in Canada (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions