Actus Reus The actus reus of an offence requires and act or omission, physical voluntariness, and causation. Omissions



Download 196.69 Kb.
Page4/6
Date28.01.2021
Size196.69 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6
R v Mabior –  has (unprotected) sex with women without disclosing HIV+. Not fraud if treatment and condoms, which gives 3 of 9 convictions.

R v Ewanchuk – 17 year-old lured into van at job interview.  grinds against her after she says no. No implied consent for sexual assault.

R v Leclerc – Hockey setting. Vicious cross check to back of neck. Implied consent for contact necessary for contact incidental to the game.

R v Faith – Hockey fight,  hits victim on right side of face wearing glove causing jaw fracture. Victim had taken ’s stick which was invitation for consensual fight.

R v Ogg-Moss – Hits developmentally handicapped adult charge with large metal spoon 5 times on forehead. Not protected by s43 because adult.

R v Duperon – Strapped 13 yo emotionally disturbed son on bare but 10 times with leather belt. To severe for s43 protection.

CFCYL v Canada (AG) – s43 does not violate that Charter.

R v Lepage – Christmas tree salesman pushes fire inspector trying to close his business. De minimis.

R v Matsuba – Teacher touches leg of grade 9 girl, shave test. De minimis. Consequence of conviction too severe.

R v Stewart – Pushes CL wife. No de minimis in the context of history of intimate violence.

Mistake of Fact

R v Pappajohn – Lunch with alcohol, then to ’s house. Victim running into street naked wearing bow tie and hands bound house later. Mistake of fact for consent doesn’t need to be reasonable. Convicted because court doesn’t believe honest mistake.

R v Sansregret -  disconnects phone, threatens and ties up victim. She tries to convince him she will stay, sex. No mistake because had happened before and  was told it was wrong.

R v Seaboyer – Striking down of some rape shield laws. No cross-examination on victim sexual history could prevent full defense.

R v. O’Connor –  wants residential school records in sexual assault case. Crown refuses, judge forces them to hand them over.

R v. Carosela – counseling centres shred records before sexual assaults go to trial so they can’t be forced to disclose intimate details about victim.

R v JA –  chokes intimate partner to unconsciousness, wakes anally penetrated with dildo and hands bound. Cannot consent while unconscious and no advanced consent allowed.

Mistake of Law

R v Docherty – s666 “willfully” violates probation order. Here sitting in care while drunk. Care and control offence conviction but not s666 because not knowing it was a crime is not “willful.”

R v Jorgensen – s163 knowingly sells obscene material. Relied on Ontario Film Board Ratings, could form officially induced error but instead find no MR because “knowingly”

R v Campbell – Chez Pierre’s naked dancing. Trial level decision had said ok. Later overruled. Conviction. No officially induced error.

Colour of Right

R v Stevenson – Peguis Chief burns down unsafe bridge on reserve, after government fails to act for years. Judge finds no honest belief.

Innu versus NATO – Occupation of runway to protest low flying planes. Goes to what is land. Colour of right available.

R v Drainville – Priest participates in three-minute roadblock. Colour of right only applies to the group, which can make the claim, not their allies.

R v Ashini – Goose Bay occupation. Honestly held belief that their ancestors never gave away their right to the land accepted. Reversed on other grounds.

R v Watson – Greenpeace fishing vessel outside of 200 mile zone toss butyric acid onto other ship. Claims CoR for Canadian law no longer applying. Fails as is found to be a mistake of law.

Intoxication




Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page