Changes in Syllabus of Canadian Criminal Law
or
Comparative Chart of Canadian Criminal Law-- May 2020 & November 2020
S. No. November 2020 Added Page May 2020v
1. General:
1. At certain places Roach NEW page no.
has been added.
2. Topic 4 : Interpreting Criminal Provisions
In the topic:
The Elements of a Criminal or Regulatory
offence:
Second last para; last given line has been added
--In addition, the prohibited act must be
committed in a voluntarily or willed manner.
3. Topic 5 : The Actus Reus
a) Acts and Statutory Conditions
at the end of Ist para;
---Sometimes an involuntary act is described
as an “accident” but care must be taken to
distinguish between involuntary acts (for
which there will be no actus reus) and
unintended acts which may still qualify as
voluntary acts and may also in some cases be
committed with objective mens rea or
objective fault.
4. Topic 6 : Subjective Mens Rea
a) Intention, Purpose and Wilfulness
Intention is a complex idea and should
generally be distinguished from motive or
desire. For example, in Hibbert, the Supreme
Court held that one may have the mens rea of
purpose under ss.21(a)(b) and 21(2) of the
Code even though one acted because of
threats. Sometimes as in s.429(1) of the
Criminal Code a high level of mens rea such
as wilfulness is defined by Parliament to
include lower levels of fault such as
recklessness. In other contexts, such as under
Deleted Page
No. No.
General:
2. Coughlan (3rd) Edition along with
page no. mentioning has been deleted.
3. At certain places Roach page no. has
been changed for reference.
7
9. Topic 5 : The Actus Reus 8.
a) Acts and Statutory Conditions
Case
1. R. v. Gunning [2005] 1 S.C.R. 627
b) The “Act” of Possession:
9.
Case
1. R. v. Marshall, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 149
(Alta. C.A.) and R. v. Terrence, [1983] 1
d) Causation: 10.
Case
1. R. v. Smithers, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506
Topic 6 : Subjective Mens Rea
11. 11.
a) Intention, and Ulterior Mens Rea
Intention is a complex idea. The accused
must have the very intention required by
the relevant provision. For example,
Murray intended to hold the Bernardo
tapes, but not for the purpose of obstructing
justice. He was therefore not guilty. In
Roks, the Court of Appeal stresses the
importance of knowing that death is
probable and warns of the dangers of
reasoning backwards from the fact that
death occurred.
1
 Changes in Syllabus of Canadian Criminal Law
or
Comparative Chart of Canadian Criminal Law-- May 2020 & November 2020
S. No. November 2020 Added Page May 2020v Deleted Page
No. No.

s.319(2) of the Code wilfulness will be Case

interpreted to require proof of a conscious 1. R. v. Murray, [2000] O.J. No. 2182
purpose. (Ont. S.C.J.)
Case
2. R. v. Roks, 2011 ONCA 526
1. R. v.Hibbert [1995] 2 SCR 973
2. Regina v. Buzzanga and Durocher,
1979 CanLII 1927 (ON CA),

b) Subjective Mens Rea with Objective b) Subjective Mens Rea with Objective
12. 11.
Features Features
Reference Some criminal offences use standards to
1. Roach pp.228-235 discussing mistake define criminal conduct. For example,
of fact and mixed subjective and
objective fault requirements some assaults are sexual in their nature,
and others are not. Some acts are dis
honest, and others are not.

c) Knowledge;
c) Knowledge;
Last Line added 12. 12.
Ist line deleted
---This again illustrates the importance of a As indicated, bearing in mind what is said
careful reading of the Code even in the area
above about standards of criminality
of fault.

Case Case
1. R. v. Barton 2019 SCC 33 1. R. v. Levigne, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 3

e) Recklessness; e) Recklessness;
Redrafted 12 & --- Recklessness is a subjective state of 12
---Recklessness is a subjective state of 13 mind that requires the accused to act in &
awareness of a risk or possibility that the
spite of actually and personally foreseeing 13
prohibited circumstances exist or that the
the risk that if she does act, the prohibited
prohibited consequence will be brought
consequence will be brought about. It
about. It therefore differs from negligence
therefore differs from negligence which
which can apply even if the actor does not
can apply even if the actor does not
personally see the risk, provided a reasonable
personally see the risk, provided a
person would have. The Supreme Court has
reasonable person would have. Still,
in both R. v. ADH and R. v. Zora affirmed
recklessness is a subjective mens rea with
the common law presumption that the
objective features because it exists only
subjective intent of at least recklessness is
where it is objectively unjustifiable to take
required unless Parliament has clearly
that risk the accused understood he was
indicated an intent to require objective fault.
taking. The fact that the accused may have
felt the risk to be justifiable would be no
2
 Changes in Syllabus of Canadian Criminal Law
or
Comparative Chart of Canadian Criminal Law-- May 2020 & November 2020
S. No. November 2020 Added Page May 2020v Deleted Page
No. No.

Case answer. Recklessness will apply where the

provision creates a consequence, but does
1. R. v. Zora 2020 SCC 14 at paras 36- not, as a matter of construction, require
51. some more limited kind of mens rea.

5. Topic 7 : Objective Mens Rea and True Crimes 13 Topic 7 : Objective Mens Rea and True Crimes 13

Amended 1st Four Lines of Ist para Deleted Last two lines of para 2
--Negligence is judged objectively, -- objective fault as the mens rea, “penal
according to what a reasonable person would negligence” - a more restricted form of
know or understand or how a reasonable negligence requiring a marked departure
person would act. The reasonable person will from reasonable standards of care – is
not include specific characteristics of the generally required.
accused unless they render the accused
incapable of appreciating the relevant risk.--
--
Amended 3rd para
----The marked departure standard applies to
all forms of objective fault but the Supreme
Court has held in R. v. J.F. and subsequently
R. v. Javanmardi that a slightly higher
objective fault standard of a marked and
substantial departure from a standard of
reasonable care is required when the charge
is laid with respect to criminal negligence
under s.219 of the Code. This affirms that as
with subjective fault, there are degrees of
objective fault and that attention must be
paidto the specific wording of Criminal Code
provisions.
Case 14
1. R v. Javanmardi 2019 SCC 54

6. Topic 14 : Automatism and Involuntary Acts 17 Topic 14 : Automatism and Involuntary Acts 17
“Negativ ing” the Actus Reus “Negativ ing” the Actus Reus

Amended 1st & Second Paras into One para
-- As indicated above, the accused does not
satisfy the actus reus requirement unless her
act is willed and voluntary. It is the
“voluntariness” concept that explains the
defence of automatism,which operates on the
theory that the accused’s physical motions
were not culpable where they are not
Deleted lines of para 1
-- As indicated above, the accused does not
satisfy the actus reus requirement unless
her act is willed. Some courts have
acquitted individuals who reflexively
strike out, using the specious reasoning
that their physical act was not willed, but
the legitimacy of this reasoning is

3
 Changes in Syllabus of Canadian Criminal Law
or
Comparative Chart of Canadian Criminal Law-- May 2020 & November 2020
S. No. November 2020 Added Page May 2020v Deleted Page
No. No.

voluntary or thought-directed or conscious, questionable. A more sophisticated

as in the sleep-walking case of R. v. Parks. application of the voluntariness concept
Please note that automatism will not was employed in R. v. Swaby.
realistically operate in any case where the Case
accused appears conscious of his conduct – it
1. R. v. Swaby, [2001] O.J. No. 2390
is reserved to those unusual cases where
there appears to be some disconnect between (Ont. C.A.)
the actions of the accused and his conscious
2. R. v. Fontaine, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 702
will. The result of the Parks decision was
controversial enough that the Supreme Court
of Canada took steps to cut the defence back
in R. v. Stone including presumptions that the
cause of automatism is a mental disorder in
an attempt to make it more difficult to obtain
an acquittal on the basis of nonmental
disorder automatism.

7. Topic 16: Extreme Intoxication and General Intent 19

Crimes
Case

1. R. v. Sullivan 2020 ONCA 333

8. Topic 17 : Defence of the Person 19

Case

1. R. v. Khill 2020 ONCA 151 leave to

appeal granted

9. Topic 20 : Provocation 20
Case

1. R. v Simard, 2019 BCSC 531 leave

to appeal denied

2. R v Land 2019 ONCA 39

10. Topic 21 : Entrapment 20

Case

1. R v Ahmad 2020 SCC 11

11. Topic 22: Error of Law 21 Topic 22: Error of Law 21

Case Case

1. Regina v. Howson, 1966 CanLII 1. Lilly v. The Queen, [1983] 1 SCR

285 (ON CA) 794

4
 Changes in Syllabus of Canadian Criminal Law
or
Comparative Chart of Canadian Criminal Law-- May 2020 & November 2020
S. No. November 2020 Added Page May 2020v Deleted Page
No. No.

12. Topic 23: The Adversarial Process 22

b) Other Burdens
Case

1. R. v. Fontaine, [2004] 1 S.C.R.

702

13. Topic 24 : Police Powers 24 Topic 24 : Police Powers 24

Case Case

1. R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34 1. R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33

2. R. v. Mills, 2019 SCC 22 2. R. v. Aucoin, 2012 SCC 66

3. R. v. MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3

14. Topic 28 : The Jury Trial 26

Para No.1 has Addition

-- If a jury trial is to be held, a trial judge is
assigned, and a jury is selected. ----- There
have been some important recent changes
to the jury selection procedure.
Peremptory challenges have been
abolished and the judge as opposed to the
two triers now determines whether a
challenge for cause has been made out.
15. Topic 31 : General Principles of Sentencing 27 Topic 31 : General Principles of Sentencing 27
Case Case

1. R. v. Lloyd 2016 SCC 13 1. R. v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 S.C.R.

206. No. 6 (paras 39-49; 63-64)

2. R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6

3. R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15

4. R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39

5. R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15