Ignorance of the Law: No Excuse in Ontario

You are driving along and you are stopped by a police officer who notices that you were texting at the last red light. The police officer informs you that you have broken the new law banning cell phones in Ontario. Are you entitled to use the fact that you did not know the law as a defense?

Nope. Oh by the way, here is your ticket... • S. 19 of the Criminal Code states that ignorance of the law is no excuse for the commission of a crime Is this a reasonable assumption? • In principle, it is your duty as a citizen to know and understand the law.

Actusreus • Refers to “guilty act” • The physical act involved in commission of offense

Actusreus • The actusreus of a criminal offense is found in its criminal code definition • Eg. s. 265 of the Criminal Code defines assault assault: • A person commits assault when • Without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that person, either directly or indirectly • For actusreus, a person must actually hit another person • To prove actusreus, the Crown would have to demonstrate that (a) there was no consent (b) force was applied

ExceptionAutomatism and Actus Reus • Actus Reus of a criminal act must be voluntary • If someone shoots someone while sleep walking, he may not be criminally liable • E.g. Kenneth Parks case 1992- The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Parks whose defense was that he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his mother in law to death • His defense was that he acted involuntarily (automatism)

Mens Rea • Refers to having a “guilty mind.” • Phrase infers moral guilt and the accused knowing they did something wrong • To meet the legal definition of a crime, the Crown must prove an act was done with criminal intent OR knowledge that what he/she did was against the law

INTENT • Intent, in the legal sense, means to carry out and act with intent, with knowledge, or by being reckless or wilfully blind to the consequences of an act. • E.g. If John threw a knife up in the air, which accidently killed Luke, would Johnny likely be guilty of manslaugher? • Yes, because Johnny was reckless took an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would not take.

General Intent versus Specific Intent • General intent: Means to commit a wrongful act for its own sake, with no other purpose or motive • Dave punches Luke because he is angry. Dave has general intent to commit assault. • For mensrea to be proven, all that needs to be done is to show that Dave punched Luke

General Intent versus Specific Intent • Specific intent • Involves intent in addition to the general intent to commit the crime • It is committing one wrongful act to accomplish another • E.g Burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offense. The break and enter requires general intent, the intent to commit an indictable offense requires specific intent • In order to prove burglary, the Crown not only has to show that a person broke into a house, but also had the specific intent of stealing.

Motive • While intent refers to the state of mind with which an act is done or not done • Motive is what prompts a person to commit an act or not act • If a person kills her mother to receive an inheritance, the inheritance is motive. This does not establish state of mind to commit murder • Crown must prove intent by showing killing was planned and deliberate

Knowledge • In order to have the requisite mensreato commit a crime, a person must have some knowledge of the actusreus of the crime • Eg. S 268 1 (a) of the Criminal Code states that “Everyone who, knowing that a document is forged, uses, deals, or acts upon it” is guilty of circulating a forged document • To establish guilt, the Crown only has to prove that the person knew the document was forged.... nothing about intent.

Recklessness and Wilful Blindness • Crown can also establish mens rea by proving accused acted reckless. • Recklessness • Usually involves taking an unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would not take • Eg. recklessly shooting a pellet gun into a crowd. The accused may not have tried to hurt someone, but they should have been able to foresee harm • Willful blindness • Suspects a criminal outcome but does not ask the questions to confirm • Eg. transporting something illegal such as drugs in a trunk

Subjective vs. Objective • Mens Rea can be an ambiguous concept. A central concept is whether the intent meets the subjectiveor objective standard. • Subjective: Did the accused know the consequences of their action? • - The preferred standard, but more difficult to measure since it is difficult to tell what is in a person’s mind at any given time. • Objective: Actions are measure against what a reasonable person might do.

Subjective vs. Objective • R v. Tutton and Tutton: Parents charged with negligence causing death with respect to their diabetic son. • They believed faith would save their son, who died as a result of their actions. • Crown argued that any reasonable person would know that not providing insulin would result in serious harm or death. Such a measure would be objective. • The defense argued they believed their actions would save their son, thus absolving them of negligence. In this view, their actions would not be criminal in a subjectivemanner. • Supreme Court was divided on the issue, illustrating the complexity of the issue.

Strict Liability • For some crimes (less serious), the Crown only needs prove the actusreus of the offense (just the guilty act) • Strict liability offenses, the accused will be convicted unless it is demonstrated that they acted with due diligence (acted as any reasonable person would under the circumstances) • The word knowingly is not in the crime definition • Eg. A company dumping pollutants into a river • Only defense would be due diligence– that they took precautions to avoid dumping pollutants • Monitoring devices were faulty • Special training for staff working on keeping river clean

Absolute Liability • These offenses allow for no defense, fault is not an issue, and the accused will be convicted based on the actus reus of the offense

Ignorance of the Law: No Excuse in Ontario