This matter involves two cases being heard together from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, that of Mr. Sullivan and of Mr. Chan. Mr. Sullivan attempted suicide using prescription drugs and, in a psychotic state, stabbed his mother. Mr. Chan voluntarily used magic mushrooms and, in a psychotic state, fatally stabbed his father and non-fatally stabbed his father’s partner. Mr. Sullivan was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. Mr. Chan was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault.Both accused tried to raise the defence of non-mental disorder automatism at trial and were denied due to s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code. This section limited the availability of that specific defence for violent crimes when the intoxication was self-induced. Mr. Chan’s trial judge found that s. 33.1 did infringe ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, but the section was saved, and thus constitutional, due to s. 1 of the Charter.The issue before the Court of Appeal for Ontario was the constitutionality of s. 33.1 and the parameters around accessing the defence of non-mental disorder automatism. The Court ruled that s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional Section 1 of the Charter could not save s. 33.1 because it sought to hold an accused accountable despite not proving the mens rea and actus reus of a codified offence. This is in direct conflict with core Charter principlesThe Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to both cases.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related