Defences In Canadian Criminal Law
Canadian criminal law provides several defences that can justify, excuse, or mitigate criminal liability. These are codified in the Criminal Code of Canada and interpreted through case law. Defences may be complete (leading to acquittal) or partial (mitigating sentence).
1. General Categories of Defences
A. Justification Defences
Self-defence (sections 34–37 Criminal Code): Protect oneself or another from imminent harm.
Defence of property (s. 35): Protect property from trespass or theft.
B. Excuse Defences
Duress (s. 17): Acted under threat of immediate death or serious bodily harm.
Necessity (s. 8, common law): Committed a crime to avoid greater harm.
Mental disorder (s. 16): Lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of the act.
C. Procedural or Technical Defences
Mistake of fact: Honest but mistaken belief negates mens rea.
Automatism: Actions were involuntary due to external or internal factors.
Intoxication: Extreme intoxication may negate specific intent in certain crimes.
2. Key Case Law Examples
1. R. v. Lavallee (1990) – Self-defence / Battered Woman Syndrome
Facts:
Angelique Lavallee shot her abusive partner in the back, killing him. She claimed self-defence, citing prolonged domestic abuse.
Holding:
Supreme Court of Canada recognized battered woman syndrome as a valid context for assessing self-defence. Lavallee’s perception of imminent threat was considered reasonable.
Relevance:
Expanded self-defence doctrine to include psychological context and cumulative threat.
Established that subjective experience of the accused is relevant to assessing reasonableness.
2. R. v. Perka (1984) – Necessity
Facts:
Smugglers carrying marijuana claimed they entered Canadian waters to avoid a storm and save lives at risk.
Holding:
Court rejected the necessity defence because the harm avoided (storm) did not justify the illegal activity (drug smuggling).
Relevance:
Sets limits on necessity defence: the harm avoided must be immediate, proportionate, and imminent.
Demonstrates the narrow application of necessity in Canadian law.
3. R. v. Ryan (2013) – Duress / Domestic Violence Context
Facts:
Nicole Ryan participated in a conspiracy to kill her husband under coercion from abusive third parties.
Holding:
Supreme Court clarified that duress requires an immediate threat of death or bodily harm, and the accused must have had no safe avenue of escape.
Relevance:
Distinguishes duress from necessity.
Requires proportionality and immediacy for the defence to succeed.
4. R. v. Stone (1999) – Automatism / Mental Disorder
Facts:
Stone attacked and killed a man during a dissociative state triggered by mental disorder.
Holding:
Supreme Court distinguished insane automatism (mental disorder, leading to NCR) from sane automatism (external factor). Stone was found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.
Relevance:
Provides framework for mental disorder and automatism defences.
Highlights importance of psychiatric evidence.
5. R. v. Parks (1992) – Automatism / Sleepwalking
Facts:
Kenneth Parks drove to his in-laws’ house and killed his mother-in-law while sleepwalking.
Holding:
Supreme Court acquitted Parks, finding non-insane automatism, as his actions were involuntary and not caused by mental disorder.
Relevance:
Demonstrates complete defence based on involuntary action.
Distinguishes between mental disorder (NCR) and temporary involuntary states (full acquittal).
6. R. v. J.A. (2011) – Mistake of Fact / Consent
Facts:
Accused engaged in sexual activity with a partner, honestly believing consent was given.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that honest mistaken belief in consent can negate the mens rea for sexual assault.
Relevance:
Highlights mens rea requirement in Canadian criminal law.
Mistake must be honest and reasonable, but not necessarily induced by negligence.
7. R. v. Brown (1994) – Intoxication
Facts:
Brown committed aggravated assault while extremely intoxicated.
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that self-induced intoxication cannot serve as a defence for general intent offences but may negate specific intent for crimes requiring planning or deliberation.
Relevance:
Clarifies limits of intoxication defence.
Distinguishes between general vs. specific intent crimes.
8. R. v. Ruzic (2001) – Duress and International Context
Facts:
Ruzic, a Canadian citizen, smuggled drugs into Canada under threat of serious harm from organized crime abroad.
Holding:
Supreme Court recognized duress as a defence even in cross-border scenarios, provided the threat was imminent and no safe avenue existed.
Relevance:
Extends duress doctrine to international coercion contexts.
Emphasizes proportionality and lack of alternatives.
3. Key Takeaways on Defence Effectiveness
Self-defence is well-established but depends on reasonableness of perceived threat.
Duress and necessity are narrow; courts examine immediacy, proportionality, and alternative options.
Automatism and mental disorder require strong psychiatric evidence; results differ depending on whether the automatism is internal (insane) or external (sane).
Mistake of fact negates mens rea, particularly for consent-related offences.
Intoxication defence is limited to specific-intent crimes; it cannot justify general-intent criminal acts.
Canadian courts balance public protection with individual circumstances, ensuring that defences are not abused but applied fairly.
RELATED Blog
comments