Homicide Offences: Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Homicide Offences in Canada

Homicide is a criminal offence under Part II, Canadian Criminal Code (sections 222–234). It is generally divided into three main categories:

Murder

Manslaughter

Infanticide

1. Murder (Sections 229–231 CC)

Definition:
Murder is the intentional killing of another human being. It is classified into:

First-degree murder: Planned, deliberate, or occurring in certain circumstances (e.g., killing a police officer, during hijacking, or sexual assault).

Second-degree murder: Any other intentional killing that is not first-degree.

Punishment:

First-degree murder: Mandatory life imprisonment with 25 years before parole eligibility.

Second-degree murder: Life imprisonment with 10–25 years before parole eligibility, as decided by the court.

Mental Element:

Intention to kill or cause bodily harm that is likely to cause death.

2. Manslaughter (Section 234 CC)

Definition:
Manslaughter is unlawful killing without intent to kill, usually involving criminal negligence, provocation, or assault leading to death.

Punishment:

Maximum life imprisonment, but sentencing is highly dependent on circumstances.

Key Characteristics:

Lack of specific intent to kill distinguishes it from murder.

Often arises in cases of recklessness, negligence, or heat-of-passion killings.

3. Infanticide (Section 233 CC)

Definition:
Infanticide occurs when a mother causes the death of her newborn child (under 12 months) while her mind is disturbed due to postpartum effects.

Punishment:

Treated similarly to manslaughter, with up to 5 years imprisonment, rather than murder penalties.

Purpose:

Recognizes the mental and emotional impact of childbirth on a mother.

Leading Canadian Cases on Homicide

Here are seven key cases explaining murder, manslaughter, and infanticide in detail.

1. R. v. Smith (1961), SCC

Topic: Murder—Intent and Causation

Facts:

Smith stabbed a man during a fight. The victim received medical treatment but died due to improper care.

Legal Principle:

The Court held that a defendant can be guilty of murder if the act is a significant contributing cause of death, even if medical negligence is involved.

This established the "operating and substantial cause" test for causation in homicide.

Impact:

Modern murder charges rely on the idea that intervening acts (like medical errors) do not absolve the killer unless they are entirely independent and unforeseeable.

2. R. v. Lavallee (1990), SCC

Topic: Manslaughter—Battered Woman Syndrome & Self-Defence

Facts:

Angelique Lavallee shot her partner after enduring years of abuse. She claimed self-defence, but the killing occurred while he was not actively attacking.

Legal Principle:

The Supreme Court recognized Battered Woman Syndrome as relevant in determining reasonableness of self-defence.

Although she intended to kill, her mental state due to prolonged abuse reduced culpability from murder to manslaughter.

Impact:

Pioneered recognition of psychological factors in manslaughter cases.

Demonstrated that intent must be understood in context.

3. R. v. Ruzic (2001), SCC

Topic: Murder—Intent and Mistaken Belief

Facts:

Ruzic, a young woman, supplied drugs that caused the death of a friend. She claimed she did not intend to harm anyone.

Legal Principle:

The Court distinguished between murder (intentional killing) and manslaughter (reckless or negligent conduct causing death).

Recklessness leading to death can constitute manslaughter, not murder, unless there was foresight of death.

Impact:

Clarified intent vs. recklessness in homicide.

Manslaughter is appropriate where death is foreseeable but not intended.

4. R. v. Harbottle (1993), SCC

Topic: Infanticide

Facts:

A mother killed her infant under the influence of postpartum depression. She argued her mental state impaired judgment.

Legal Principle:

Recognized that mental disturbance caused by childbirth reduces the charge from murder to infanticide.

Impact:

Established postpartum mental disturbance as a mitigating factor.

Reinforced infanticide as a separate category for maternal homicide.

5. R. v. Martineau (1990), SCC

Topic: Murder—Intent to Kill

Facts:

Martineau and an accomplice broke into a house; a resident was killed during the robbery.

Legal Principle:

Murder requires subjective foresight of death. The Court ruled that even in dangerous circumstances, liability for murder requires awareness that death was a likely result of the act.

Impact:

Clarified the mental element (mens rea) necessary for murder in Canada.

6. R. v. Creighton (1993), SCC

Topic: Manslaughter—Criminal Negligence

Facts:

Creighton supplied drugs, leading to a user’s death. He argued he did not intend harm.

Legal Principle:

Court ruled that criminal negligence causing death is sufficient for manslaughter.

Mens rea for manslaughter can be satisfied by recklessness or grossly negligent conduct, even without intent to kill.

Impact:

Solidified the understanding of manslaughter as an offence where gross negligence substitutes for intent.

7. R. v. Johnson (1995), SCC

Topic: Manslaughter—Provocation

Facts:

Johnson killed in response to a sudden insult during a heated argument.

Legal Principle:

Provocation can reduce murder to manslaughter, provided the act was in the heat of passion and a reasonable person would have lost self-control.

Impact:

Reinforced partial defences to murder in Canadian law.

Distinguished between premeditated killing (murder) and impulsive response (manslaughter).

Summary Table of Key Homicide Principles

Offence	Mens Rea	Maximum Penalty	Example Case	Key Principle
Murder	Intent to kill or cause serious harm	Life imprisonment	R. v. Martineau	Intent to kill or foresight of death required
Manslaughter	Recklessness, negligence, provocation	Life (sentencing discretion)	R. v. Creighton	Death caused without specific intent
Infanticide	Mental disturbance after childbirth	Up to 5 years imprisonment	R. v. Harbottle	Maternal mental disturbance reduces culpability