Lecture 3B

R v Molis [1980]
Appellant: Albert Peter Molis ; Respondent: Crown On appeal from Ontario Court of Appeal Charge: trafficking restricted drug (MDMA) Not a restricted drug months prior to arrest New law published in Canada Gazette Law was not yet in the Criminal Code Is ignorance of law a reasonable defence? Appeal is dismissed: Molis lost Ignorance is not a defence ; Gazette is public & sufficient Did not meet standard of due diligence (did not try as hard as he could have to find out if it was illegal) Even if not yet in the Criminal Code, ignorance is not in a defence

Facts Issue Decision Reason

Relevance

R v Cooper [1993]
Appellant: Crown ; Respondent: Lyndon Paul Cooper On appeal from Newfoundland Court of Appeal Cooper was drinking with victim Sitting in the jeep Cooper was hit so he grabbed the Facts victims throat Cooper woke up, and saw the body Cooper charged with 2nd degree murder Nature of intent required for murder conviction under Criminal Code s 212 (a) (ii) a. Subjective intent to cause bodily harm Issue b. Subjective knowledge that bodily harm is likely to result in death Appeal allowed: Crown won Decision Cooper had intent at some point during the Actus Reus Reason Blacking out is not a defence Mens Rea & Actus Reus must coincide at some point Relevance Intent need not be throughout Concept: de minimis o Common law concept used in defence o Long form: de minimis non curat lex Law should not punish a mere trifle (p. 90) o Applies in disputes over trivial matters Small amount of drug possession; theft od small value object o Intended to not over-criminalize, stigmatize o Can be applied to determine significant contributing cause

R v Nette [2001]
Appellant: Daniel Matthew Nette ; Respondent: Crown On appeal from British Columbia Court of Appeal

Facts

Issue Decision Reason Relevance Facts

Issue Decision Reason Relevance

95 year old woman robbed and left bound with head covered She had been suffocated within the last 48 hours Charge: 1st degree murder Conviction: 2nd degree murder How to decide when cause was not trivial? Usefulness of de minimis test for juries Appeal was dismissed: Nette lost 2nd degree murder charge was upheld Jury was correct, but the instructions should change Test should ask if cause is significant, rather than ask if cause is not insignificant Causation test should be worded positively for juries deciding 2nd degree murder charge Avoid the latin 95 year old woman robbed and left bound with head covered She had been suffocated within the last 48 hours Charge: 1st degree murder Conviction: 2nd degree murder How to decide when cause was not trivial? Usefulness of de minimis test for juries Appeal was dismissed: Nette lost 2nd degree murder charge was upheld Jury was correct, but the instructions should change Test should ask if cause is significant, rather than ask if cause is not insignificant Causation test should be worded positively for juries deciding 2nd degree murder charge Avoid the latin

R v Naglik [1993]
Appellant / Respondent: Christine Naglik (appealed conviction) Respondent / Appellant: Crown (cross-appealed application of law by lower court) On appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal Charge: Failure to provide the necessaries of life for her son Facts Objective test applied Naglik was convicted ; her husband was not Applicability of objective standard of care Does Criminal Code s 215 violate Charter s 7 (stigma)? o 215(1) everyone is under legal duty Issue a. As a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years Appeal and cross-appeal allowed Decision Convictions set aside; retrial allowed Objective standard applies Reason Does not violate Charter s. 7

Relevance

Failure to act can lead to criminal conviction Duty of care does not violate Charter s 7