436:
enumerated crimes was rationally connected to the section's purpose. However, it failed the minimal impairment test because
Parliament had several less intrusive alternatives to achieve its objectives. First, it could have created a stand-alone offence of ingesting dangerous substances, this would not violate section 7 or 11(d) while also protecting the public by deterring individuals from ingesting substances that could pose a danger to public safety by triggering a state akin to automatism. Second, Parliament could have enacted a similar provision with an actual negligence fault requirement. Under such a provision the Crown would have to prove that the automatism and resulting violence was reasonably foreseeable to the accused when they ingested the substance. Finally, the court held, the salutary effects of the provision were outweighed by its deleterious effects. Kasirer noted that the provision seriously trampled on basic norms of the criminal justice system designed to protect the innocent. It had no regard for the voluntariness of the accused's conduct, it had no criterion for objective foreseeability, so people could theoretically be charged for unforeseeable automatism that results from legal or prescribed substances, and by substituting intent to get intoxicated with the intent to commit the predicate offence, it could lead to disproportionate punishments that don't reflect the accused's moral blameworthiness.
417:) requirement, because under the section a marked departure automatically existed when a violent offence was committed under a state of extreme intoxication, with no regard for whether the resulting state of automatism was reasonably foreseeable. The Court has long recognized that it is a principle of fundamental justice under Section 7 of the Charter that criminal offences require a minimum fault requirement, which is at least negligence. He reasoned that while section 33.1 appeared to have this fault requirement based on the language of "marked departure" used, it actually was just a provision assigning liability in certain situations under the pretext of a fault requirement. Essentially, parliament was substituting the intent to get intoxicated with mens rea for the general intent offences covered by the section. He accordingly held that section 33.1 violated section 7 of the Charter because it allowed for the deprivation of liberty contrary to a principle of fundamental justice, namely that all criminal offences require a minimum
425:
Parliament declares that proof of one fact is presumed to satisfy proof of one of the essential elements of an offence, a breach of section 11(d) will be established unless the proving of that fact inexorably leads to the conclusion that the essential element must've also been met. Under 33.1 proving that the accused had the intent to consume the substance could be substituted for intent to commit the predicate offences, and the inexorable connection exception could not apply, and accordingly a violation of section 11(d) was also established.
281:
sounded like an "explosion". As she went to investigate the break-in, she was attacked by Brown. He knocked her to the ground and began beating her with a broken broom handle. Eventually she managed to escape to the bathroom, where she locked herself in, while Brown ran out to the street. When she thought he was gone, she ran to the neighbour's house and began banging on the door. The neighbour found
Hamnett covered in blood, with a towel wrapped around her hands to shield serious hand injuries, and called the police.
29:
432:, which determines whether a limit of a Charter right is reasonable. In order to surmount the Oakes test, the limit must be imposed for a substantial and pressing objective, it must be rationally connected to that objective, it must impair the Charter rights as minimally as possible to achieve that objective, and the benefits from the limit must outweigh its negative effects. Section 33.1, Kasirer reasoned, failed at both the minimal impairment and final balancing stage of the test.
308:(2) For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.
526:(2) For the purposes of determining whether the person departed markedly from the standard of care, the court must consider the objective foreseeability of the risk that the consumption of the intoxicating substances could cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person. The court must, in making the determination, also consider all relevant circumstances, including anything that the person did to avoid the risk.
435:
He first acknowledged that
Parliament's objectives of holding people who commit violent offences while in a state of extreme intoxication accountable, and protecting victims of intoxication-linked violence were substantial and pressing. He also found that withholding the defence of automatism for the
408:
meant that people who commit crimes while under a state of extreme intoxication had to remain out of the reach of criminal law, holding that there were constitutionally sound mechanisms through which
Parliament could achieve its goal of holding those people accountable. He then started expounding on
455:
was reviewing its options, while also stressing the decision only covered cases of intoxication akin to automatism and did not apply to the vast majority of cases related to intoxication-linked violence. Elizabeth Sheehy, Isabel Grant, and Kerri A. Froc, all law professors, wrote an article for the
359:
dealt with a common law rule that restricted a defence. Justice Beth Hughes wrote that section 33.1 was different from the Leary rule because it had a fault requirement, citing the section's declarations on the standard of reasonable care recognized in
Canadian society and what constituted a marked
354:
did not foreclose
Parliament from enacting legislation to close the legislative "gap" which allowed some offenders to avoid criminal liability if they were extremely intoxicated, holding that section 33.1 criminalized the ingestion of dangerous substances that could trigger automatism. In contrast,
280:
Brown eventually removed his clothing and left the house at around 3:45 AM in an agitated state, running naked in bare feet through the cold winter night. Brown's friends searched for him for ten to fifteen minutes before calling the police. Around 4 AM, professor Janet
Hamnett was woken up by what
399:
had upheld the Leary rule as it related to typical forms of intoxication. He also acknowledged
Parliament's pressing objective in holding people who engage in crimes of violence while intoxicated accountable, noting how intoxication-linked violence disproportionately affects women and children and
424:
Kasirer J further held that the provision similarly violated section 11(d) of the
Charter, which guarantees the presumption of innocence. He noted that the presumption of innocence requires the crown to establish all essential elements of an offence. Based on the Court's prior jurisprudence, when
305:(1) It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self-induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).
284:
Around 5 AM, Brown broke into another residence a kilometre away. The couple who owned the house barricaded themselves in the bedroom and called the police. The police arrived to find a bruised Brown lying naked on the floor of the bathroom. He complied with police instructions and was taken to a
491:
to respond to the ruling. The bill would follow one of the alternatives mentioned by the
Supreme Court in its ruling, and amend section 33.1 to provide for a real fault requirement, namely negligence. The Crown would need to prove that the accused acted negligently in consuming the intoxicating
368:, where the court held that the infringements could not be justified for intoxication akin to automatism, she placed emphasis on the common law origin of the Leary rule. She noted that Parliament had examined evidence on the damage and risk of allowing such a defence after
341:
reversed Dewit's decision and declared section 33.1 to be constitutional, also setting aide's Brown's acquittal. The three judges on the Court all wrote separate opinions upholding the provision. The judges distinguished the present case before them from
298:
at the time of the offences, and that a reaction from ingesting the mushrooms was the clear causative factor for the episode. In response to his submissions, the Crown invoked section 33.1 of the criminal code to preempt the defence. Section 33.1 stated:
464:
to revise the law to limit its damage. Kat Owens, project director at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, said she was relieved that the Court had set a high bar for the defence and clarified that normal cases of intoxication would not suffice.
277:. He had used magic mushrooms before and had described them as giving a "fuzzy but positive feeling". Brown would go on to describe at trial how he started feeling "wonky" at around 1:30 AM the following day, and began losing his grip on reality.
992:
529:(3) This section applies in respect of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that includes as an element an assault or any other interference or threat of interference by a person with the bodily integrity of another person.
311:(3) This section applies in respect of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that includes as an element an assault or any other interference or threat of interference by a person with the bodily integrity of another person.
492:
substance as an essential element of an offence covered by the section, having regard to the objective foreseeability of risk that comes with its ingestion, among other factors. The bill passed through the House on June 22, after
237:", which restricts intoxication from being used as a defence, while constitutional to the extent it relates to normal forms of intoxication, could not be justified as it related to extreme forms of intoxication akin to
520:(b) before they were in a state of extreme intoxication, they departed markedly from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances with respect to the consumption of intoxicating substances.
513:(1) A person who, by reason of self-induced extreme intoxication, lacks the general intent or voluntariness ordinarily required to commit an offence referred to in subsection (3), nonetheless commits the offence if
968:
317:
In response, Brown brought a constitutional challenge to the provision. The Supreme Court had partially invalided (for extreme intoxication akin to automatism) a similar common law rule (the Leary rule) in
412:
Kasirer J explained that section 33.1 did not create a new offence, instead it eliminated a defence for certain existing general intent offences. He also found that section 33.1 did not contain a fault
472:, respectively, on the ruling. Baker said a new, more carefully tailored, law could be in everyone's interest if properly drafted. And Cosh noted the "sacred and ancient" role of the requirement for
385:
105:
428:
The Court then turned to the question of whether the Charter breaches could be justified under section 1, which allows for "reasonable limits" on Charter rights. Kasirer J recounted the
389:
361:
113:
101:
468:
The ruling received a more sympathetic reception from Dennis Baker, associate professor of political science, and columnist Colby Cosh. They wrote articles for the Toronto Star and
294:
for the crime since he was in a state of automatism as a result of ingesting the magic mushrooms. Expert evidence adduced at the trial confirmed that he was indeed in a state of
445:
861:
204:, which prohibited an accused from raising self-induced intoxication as a defence to criminal charges. The Court unanimously held that the section violated the
360:
departure from it. Justice Ritu Khullar found breaches of the Charter but upheld the section anyway, holding that those infringements could be justified under
779:
392:
of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1. Accordingly, he struck down 33.1 for being unconstitutional, declaring it to be of no force or effect.
754:
672:
550:
395:
Kasirer J started his opinion by distinguishing the automatism-like intoxication at issue from typical forms of intoxication, citing that the Court in
700:
829:
444:
The decision drew criticism. Hamnett expressed her disappointment at the result of the case, writing that she was also afraid for future victims.
205:
109:
334:
struck down the provision. Judge Michele Hollins subsequently entered an acquittal, finding that Brown had indeed been in a state of automatism.
943:
1114:
894:
331:
1124:
1067:"Government Bill (House of Commons) C-28 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication)"
639:
1119:
993:"Photos: Students from TASSS, Adam Scott in Peterborough walk out to protest Supreme Court decision on extreme intoxication defence"
969:"Hoping for change: Bridgetown, N.S., student holds protest against Supreme Court of Canada extreme intoxication ruling | SaltWire"
452:
493:
82:
1017:
918:
488:
338:
622:
701:"Supreme Court's fall clean-up: Nearly 40 years after Charter's birth, judges must settle old questions again"
538:
means intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour.
673:"Supreme Court rules extreme intoxication defence available for violent crimes in Alberta, Ontario decisions"
1091:
626:
195:
142:
34:
258:
199:
128:
96:
569:
150:
28:
1099:
1066:
242:
262:
805:
146:
869:
837:
1095:
384:
wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court, holding that section 33.1 of the criminal code violated
497:
381:
285:
hospital to receive medical care, and then to jail. Brown had no memory of either incident.
238:
181:
162:
138:
261:, consumed six or seven mixed drinks, a few beers, and less than one-and-a-half grams of
461:
158:
1018:"New Liberal bill targets 'negligent' extreme intoxication after Supreme Court ruling"
400:
undermines social equality. Finally, he stressed that neither the Court's decision in
1108:
469:
448:
60:
780:"Extreme intoxication bill will become law after Senate, House expedite its passage"
350:
vs the statutory roots of section 33.1. Judge Frans Slatter wrote that the Court in
755:"Law barring use of extreme intoxication as criminal defence unconstitutional: SCC"
501:
457:
327:
274:
225:
166:
154:
1041:
862:"Opinion | Parliament can and should restore limits to the intoxication defence"
725:
223:
The case was a successor to the Court's controversial 1994 landmark decision in
944:"Kingston students rally against Supreme Court 'extreme intoxication' decision"
895:"Colby Cosh: Supreme Court follows the science (uh, oh) in 'automatism' ruling"
429:
288:
At trial Brown tried to argue he was innocent because he lacked the requisite
270:
230:
873:
841:
476:
in Canada's justice system. The decision was also defended by some lawyers.
234:
409:
why the particular mechanism Parliament had chosen was unconstitutional.
295:
290:
640:"Intoxication can be violent crime defense, Canada supreme court rules"
266:
372:
and had made a "defensible" choice in taking away the defence again.
487:
On June 17, a month after the decision, Lametti tabled a bill in
245:
enacting section 33.1. Parliament would likewise respond to the
210:
and struck it down as unconstitutional. The Court delivered the
948:
Kingstonist News - 100% local, independent news in Kingston, ON
326:
which had even spurred Parliament to enact section 33.1. Judge
830:"Opinion | Supreme Court of Canada ruling a setback for women"
460:
decrying the ruling as a setback for women and calling on the
241:. The case had sparked outcry, which served as a catalyst for
479:
Protests were held throughout the country over the ruling.
517:(a) all the other elements of the offence are present; and
346:
by pointing out the common law root of the restriction in
625:, S.C.C. 18 (2021: November 9, 2021; May 13, 2022),
612:
610:
608:
606:
604:
602:
600:
598:
596:
594:
592:
590:
588:
586:
584:
582:
580:
578:
214:
decision alongside the decision for its companion case
177:
172:
134:
124:
119:
88:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
198:on the constitutionality of section 33.1 of the
509:
301:
54:Matthew Winston Brown v. Her Majesty The Queen
8:
249:ruling, this time by amending section 33.1.
804:Branch, Legislative Services (2022-01-16).
726:"R v Daviault Case Brief | CanLII Connects"
551:2022 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada
496:unanimously agreed to expedite it, and the
257:Matthew Brown, a 26-year-old student of
562:
500:followed on June 23. The bill received
110:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
18:
446:Attorney General and Justice Minister
322:, and it was in fact the backlash to
7:
749:
747:
745:
694:
692:
666:
664:
662:
660:
421:requirement of at least negligence.
194:, 2022 SCC 18, is a decision of the
806:"Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code"
570:SCC Case Information - Docket 39781
507:Section 33.1 now reads as follows:
14:
504:and became law on the same day.
27:
451:immediately announced that the
364:. Distinguishing the case from
724:Jones, Robert (Nov 25, 2014).
332:Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
207:Charter of Rights and Freedoms
1:
1115:Supreme Court of Canada cases
942:Stafford, Tori (2022-05-18).
671:Grant, Meghan (2022-05-13).
997:thepeterboroughexaminer.com
83:Court of Appeal for Alberta
1141:
1125:Canadian criminal case law
893:Cosh, Colby (2022-05-14).
269:. Magic mushrooms contain
112:and cannot be saved under
81:Judgment for Crown in the
43:Hearing: November 9, 2021
1120:2022 in Canadian case law
699:Fine, Sean (2021-10-02).
93:
26:
362:section 1 of the Charter
1092:Supreme Court of Canada
810:laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
572:Supreme Court of Canada
404:or its decision now in
339:Alberta Court of Appeal
196:Supreme Court of Canada
143:Andromache Karakatsanis
35:Supreme Court of Canada
16:Canadian legal decision
1094:decision available at
1069:. Parliament of Canada
1048:. Parliament of Canada
919:"Reaffirming mens rea"
542:
315:
259:Mount Royal University
45:Judgment: May 13, 2022
646:. Reuters. 2022-05-13
532:(4) In this section,
453:Department of Justice
535:extreme intoxication
265:while at a party in
178:Unanimous reasons by
94:Section 33.1 of the
923:nationalmagazine.ca
705:The Globe and Mail
462:Trudeau government
623:2022 CanLII 39781
229:, which held the
187:
186:
1132:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1074:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1053:
1038:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1028:
1014:
1008:
1007:
1005:
1004:
989:
983:
982:
980:
979:
973:www.saltwire.com
964:
958:
957:
955:
954:
939:
933:
932:
930:
929:
915:
909:
908:
906:
905:
890:
884:
883:
881:
880:
866:The Toronto Star
858:
852:
851:
849:
848:
834:The Toronto Star
826:
820:
819:
817:
816:
801:
795:
794:
792:
791:
776:
770:
769:
767:
766:
751:
740:
739:
737:
736:
721:
715:
714:
712:
711:
696:
687:
686:
684:
683:
668:
655:
654:
652:
651:
636:
630:
614:
573:
567:
489:House of Commons
382:Nicholas Kasirer
163:Nicholas Kasirer
139:Michael Moldaver
120:Court membership
31:
19:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1105:
1104:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1072:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1051:
1049:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1026:
1024:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1002:
1000:
991:
990:
986:
977:
975:
967:Malloy, Jason.
966:
965:
961:
952:
950:
941:
940:
936:
927:
925:
917:
916:
912:
903:
901:
892:
891:
887:
878:
876:
860:
859:
855:
846:
844:
828:
827:
823:
814:
812:
803:
802:
798:
789:
787:
778:
777:
773:
764:
762:
753:
752:
743:
734:
732:
723:
722:
718:
709:
707:
698:
697:
690:
681:
679:
670:
669:
658:
649:
647:
638:
637:
633:
615:
576:
568:
564:
559:
547:
541:
523:
485:
442:
378:
314:
263:magic mushrooms
255:
135:Puisne Justices
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1138:
1136:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1086:
1085:External links
1083:
1080:
1079:
1058:
1033:
1009:
984:
959:
934:
910:
885:
868:. 2022-05-16.
853:
836:. 2022-05-13.
821:
796:
771:
741:
716:
688:
656:
631:
574:
561:
560:
558:
555:
554:
553:
546:
543:
540:
539:
530:
527:
524:
522:
521:
518:
514:
510:
484:
481:
441:
438:
386:sections 11(d)
377:
374:
313:
312:
309:
306:
302:
275:hallucinogenic
254:
251:
185:
184:
179:
175:
174:
170:
169:
159:Sheilah Martin
136:
132:
131:
129:Richard Wagner
126:
122:
121:
117:
116:
91:
90:
86:
85:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1137:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1110:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1090:Full text of
1089:
1088:
1084:
1068:
1062:
1059:
1047:
1043:
1042:"C-28 (44-1)"
1037:
1034:
1023:
1019:
1013:
1010:
998:
994:
988:
985:
974:
970:
963:
960:
949:
945:
938:
935:
924:
920:
914:
911:
900:
899:National Post
896:
889:
886:
875:
871:
867:
863:
857:
854:
843:
839:
835:
831:
825:
822:
811:
807:
800:
797:
785:
781:
775:
772:
760:
756:
750:
748:
746:
742:
731:
727:
720:
717:
706:
702:
695:
693:
689:
678:
674:
667:
665:
663:
661:
657:
645:
641:
635:
632:
628:
627:Supreme Court
624:
620:
619:
613:
611:
609:
607:
605:
603:
601:
599:
597:
595:
593:
591:
589:
587:
585:
583:
581:
579:
575:
571:
566:
563:
556:
552:
549:
548:
544:
537:
536:
531:
528:
525:
519:
516:
515:
512:
511:
508:
505:
503:
499:
495:
490:
482:
480:
477:
475:
471:
470:National Post
466:
463:
459:
454:
450:
449:David Lametti
447:
439:
437:
433:
431:
426:
422:
420:
416:
410:
407:
403:
398:
393:
391:
387:
383:
375:
373:
371:
367:
363:
358:
353:
349:
345:
340:
335:
333:
329:
325:
321:
310:
307:
304:
303:
300:
297:
293:
292:
286:
282:
278:
276:
273:, an illegal
272:
268:
264:
260:
252:
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
221:
219:
218:
213:
209:
208:
203:
202:
201:Criminal Code
197:
193:
192:
183:
180:
176:
173:Reasons given
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
151:Russell Brown
148:
144:
140:
137:
133:
130:
127:
125:Chief Justice
123:
118:
115:
111:
107:
106:section 11(d)
103:
99:
98:
97:Criminal Code
92:
87:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
1071:. Retrieved
1061:
1050:. Retrieved
1045:
1036:
1025:. Retrieved
1021:
1012:
1001:. Retrieved
999:. 2022-05-20
996:
987:
976:. Retrieved
972:
962:
951:. Retrieved
947:
937:
926:. Retrieved
922:
913:
902:. Retrieved
898:
888:
877:. Retrieved
865:
856:
845:. Retrieved
833:
824:
813:. Retrieved
809:
799:
788:. Retrieved
786:. 2022-06-24
783:
774:
763:. Retrieved
761:. 2022-05-13
758:
733:. Retrieved
729:
719:
708:. Retrieved
704:
680:. Retrieved
676:
648:. Retrieved
644:the Guardian
643:
634:
618:R. v. Brown.
617:
616:
565:
534:
533:
506:
502:royal assent
486:
478:
473:
467:
458:Toronto Star
443:
434:
427:
423:
418:
414:
411:
405:
401:
396:
394:
379:
369:
365:
356:
351:
347:
343:
336:
328:Willie Dewit
323:
320:R v Daviault
319:
316:
289:
287:
283:
279:
256:
246:
226:R v Daviault
224:
222:
217:R v Sullivan
216:
215:
211:
206:
200:
190:
189:
188:
167:Mahmud Jamal
155:Malcolm Rowe
147:Suzanne Côté
95:
53:
33:
1022:Global News
65:2022 SCC 18
1109:Categories
1073:2022-06-17
1052:2022-06-24
1027:2022-06-17
1003:2022-05-26
978:2022-05-26
953:2022-05-19
928:2022-05-19
904:2022-05-19
879:2022-05-19
847:2022-05-14
815:2022-05-14
790:2022-07-05
765:2022-05-14
735:2022-05-13
710:2022-05-13
682:2022-05-13
650:2022-05-13
557:References
430:Oakes test
271:psilocybin
253:Background
243:Parliament
239:automatism
235:Leary rule
231:common law
70:Docket No.
1046:LEGISinfo
874:0319-0781
842:0319-0781
483:Aftermath
440:Reception
191:R v Brown
182:Kasirer J
114:section 1
102:section 7
100:violates
61:Citations
22:R v Brown
677:CBC News
629:(Canada)
545:See also
474:mens rea
419:mens rea
415:mens rea
402:Daviault
397:Daviault
380:Justice
376:Judgment
370:Daviault
366:Daviault
357:Daviault
352:Daviault
348:Daviault
344:Daviault
330:for the
324:Daviault
296:delirium
291:mens rea
784:CTVNews
759:CTVNews
621:,
267:Calgary
108:of the
89:Holding
1100:CanLII
872:
840:
730:Canlii
498:Senate
73:39781
1096:LexUM
406:Brown
247:Brown
212:Brown
1098:and
870:ISSN
838:ISSN
388:and
337:The
104:and
494:MPs
1111::
1044:.
1020:.
995:.
971:.
946:.
921:.
897:.
864:.
832:.
808:.
782:.
757:.
744:^
728:.
703:.
691:^
675:.
659:^
642:.
577:^
220:.
165:,
161:,
157:,
153:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
1076:.
1055:.
1030:.
1006:.
981:.
956:.
931:.
907:.
882:.
850:.
818:.
793:.
768:.
738:.
713:.
685:.
653:.
413:(
390:7
233:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
