|
R. V. Vaillancourt
''R v Vaillancourt'', 9872 S.C.R. 636, is a landmark case from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Criminal Code concept of "constructive murder". The Court raised the possibility that crimes with significant "stigma" attached, such as murder, require proof of the mens rea element of ''subjective foresight of death'', but declined to decide on that basis. Instead, they concluded that all crimes require proof of at least objective fault, that the particular provision at issue here did not meet that requirement, and therefore that provision of the Criminal Code for constructive murder was unconstitutional. Background Yvan Vaillancourt and a friend planned to rob a local pool hall. Before the robbery they had agreed to only use knives. However, when his friend showed up for the robbery with a gun Vaillancourt made him take the bullets out and place them in his glove. Immediately after the robbery took place, Vaillancourt saw his friend go back into the hall w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Supreme Court Of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal Appeal, appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions (common law and Civil law (legal system), civil law) and bilingual, hearing cases in both Official bilingualism in Canada, official languages of Canada (English language, English and French language, French). The effects of any judicial decision on the common law, on the interpretation of statutes, or on any other application of law, can, in effect, be nullified by legislation, unless the particular decision of the court in question involves applicatio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Criminal Code (Canada)
The ''Criminal Code'' (french: Code criminel)The citation of this Act by these short titles is authorised by thEnglishantexts of section 1. is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is ''An Act respecting the Criminal Law'' (French: ), and it is sometimes abbreviated as ''Cr.C.'' (French: ) in legal reports. Section 91(27) of the ''Constitution Act, 1867'' establishes the sole jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada over criminal law. The ''Criminal Code'' contains some defences, but most are part of the common law rather than statute. Important Canadian criminal laws not forming part of the code include the ''Firearms Act'', the ''Controlled Drugs and Substances Act'', the ''Canada Evidence Act'', the ''Food and Drugs Act'', the ''Youth Criminal Justice Act'' and the ''Contraventions Act''. One of the conveniences of the ''Criminal Code'' was that it constituted the principle that no person would be able to be convic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Murder (Canadian Law)
In Canada, homicide is the act of causing death to another person through any means, directly or indirectly. Homicide can either be culpable or non-culpable, with the former being unlawful under a category of offences defined in the Criminal Code, a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada that applies uniformly across the country. Murder is the most serious category of culpable homicide, the others being manslaughter and infanticide. Culpability To commit homicide is to cause by any means, directly or indirectly, the death of a human being. All forms of ''culpable'' homicide require some form of intent (although not necessarily the intent to cause death, or the death of the victim) or criminal negligence. In particular, a homicide is culpable if it occurs: The general test for causation for culpable homicide is that the accused was a ''significant contributing cause'' of the victim's death. However, for a culpable homicide to be murder ''in the first degree'' for one of the r ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mens Rea
In criminal law, (; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action (or lack of action) would cause a crime to be committed. It is considered a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal Legal liability, liability is expressed in the Latin phrase ,1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.) i.e. "the act is not Culpability, culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a general rule, someone who acted without mental Fault (law), fault is not liable in criminal law Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law i ....". . . a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material eleme ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification (jurisprudence), justification or valid excuse (legal), excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. ("The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.") This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction (area), jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of Malice (law), ''malice'',This is "malice" in a technical legal sense, not the more usual English sense denoting an emotional state. See malice (law). brought about by reasonable Provocation (legal), provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, ''Involuntary'' manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section Seven Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 7 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice. This ''Charter'' provision provides both substantive and procedural rights. It has broad application beyond merely protecting due process in administrative proceedings and in the adjudicative context, and has in certain circumstances touched upon major national policy issues such as entitlement to social assistance and public health care. As such, it has proven to be a controversial provision in the ''Charter''. Text Under the heading of "Legal Rights", the section states: Application The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This inclu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (french: Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The ''Charter'' was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the ''Constitution Act, 1982''. The ''Charter'' was preceded by the '' Canadian Bill of Rights'', enacted in 1960, which was a federal statute rather than a constitutional document. As a federal statute, the ''Bill of Rights'' could be amended through the ordinary legislative process and had no application to provincial laws. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fundamental Justice
In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per '' R v Malmo-Levine''. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state (e.g., the rule against unclear or vague laws). The degree of protection dictated by these standards and procedural rights vary in accordance with the precise context, involving a contextual analysis of the affected person's interests. In other words, the more a person's rights or interests are adversely affected, the more procedural or substantive protections must be afforded to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities standard commonly used in civil cases, because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty, or in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; failure to do so entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." In practice Because a defendant is presumed to be innocent, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt on every e ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Section One Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Section 1 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are ''guaranteed''. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's ''Charter'' rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography (e.g., in ''R v Sharpe''), hate speech (e.g., in ''R v Keegstra''), and obscenity (e.g., in ''R v Butler''). When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was ''prescribed by law'' namely, that the law is attuned to the values of ''accessibility'' and ''intelligibility''; and secondly, that it is ''justified in a free and democratic society'', which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional. Text Und ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
List Of Supreme Court Of Canada Cases (Dickson Court)
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from Brian Dickson's appointment as Chief Justice on April 18, 1984, to his retirement on June 30, 1990. 1984 19851989 1990 See also * List of notable Canadian Courts of Appeals cases A select number of decisions from the Courts of Appeal have proven to be the leading case law in a number of fields and have subsequently been adopted across all provinces, or else they are famous decisions in their own right. Most frequently the ... {{Supreme Court of Canada (1984-1990) ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Felony Murder
The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder. The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime regardless of intent. History While there is debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the offence be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous fel ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
