ch 3

Causation in Criminal Law

  • Fundamental Principles: Key to criminal law; distinguishes between factual and legal causation.

  • Factual vs Legal Causation:

    • Factual Causation: "but for" test determines if the defendant's conduct caused the consequence.

    • Legal Causation: Addresses accountability based on foreseeability of consequences.

  • Reasonable Foreseeability: Vital for legal causation; punishment can only occur for consequences that were foreseeable.

  • Significant Contributing Cause: Defendant's actions must significantly contribute to the actus reus of an offence.

Key Case Summaries

  • Trotta (2004): Convictions based on causation; husband convicted of 2nd degree murder.

  • Nette (2001): Established the need to discern factual and legal causation.

Homicide Guidelines

  • Definition of Death: Legal definition varies; considered dead when there is irreversible cessation of all brain functions.

  • Acceleration of Death: Crown can prosecute if actions lead to death even if victim had pre-existing conditions.

    • E.g.: Murder charges upheld even if victim was terminally ill.

Special Considerations in Homicide

  • Elements Affecting Causation:

    • Palliative Care: Legal if intent is pain relief, even if it accelerates death.

    • Passive Euthanasia: Legal if treatment is withdrawn voluntarily.

    • Assisted Suicide: Traditionally illegal, but MAID Act permits under strict conditions.

Causation in Culpable Homicide

  • General Rule: Defendant's act does not need to be the sole cause; must be a significant contributing cause.

  • Intervening Acts: Events between injury and death can affect causation chain; must prove significant contribution or foreseeability.

  • E.g.: Smithers and Harbottle cases clarified the application of the significant contributing cause standard.

Medical Treatment Impact

  • Improper Medical Treatment: Can break the chain of causation if not administered in good faith.

  • E.g.: In Jordan, improper treatment led to quashing conviction.

Victim's Treatment Refusal

  • Defendant remains liable even if refusal of treatment contributes to death; section 224 applies.

Psychological Influence on Victims

  • Death from fear or stress can still be homicide under certain conditions; culpability can arise from threats induced by the accused.

  • E.g.: Cases of Charbonneau and Power highlight the link between psychological influence and death.

Detailed Case Analysis

  • Trotta (2004)

    • Context: This case involved a defendant, a husband, whose actions led to a criminal conviction based on the principles of causation.

    • Outcome: The husband was convicted of 2nd-degree murder.

    • Importance/Application: This case demonstrates the practical application of causation principles in securing convictions for serious offences, specifically illustrating how a defendant's conduct can be established as the cause of death in a murder charge.

  • Nette (2001)

    • Context: A significant case in Canadian criminal law that addressed the complexities of establishing causation in criminal responsibility.

    • Outcome: The specific conviction outcome is not detailed in the note, but the ruling had a crucial jurisprudential impact on causation analysis.

    • Importance/Application: This case was fundamental in clarifying the distinct requirements for both factual causation (the "but for" test) and legal causation (which focuses on accountability based on foreseeability), ensuring that both aspects are properly considered when determining criminal liability.

  • Smithers and Harbottle

    • Context: These cases, frequently cited together, played a pivotal role in defining the standard for assessing causation in instances of culpable homicide.

    • Outcome: The note does not detail the specific outcomes for each individual case.

    • Importance/Application: These cases collectively clarified and firmly established the "significant contributing cause" standard. They affirm that for an act to constitute the cause of death in a criminal context, it does not have to be the sole cause but must be a significant factor in bringing about the death.

  • Jordan

    • Context: This case involved a scenario where a victim, after being injured by the defendant, subsequently received improper medical treatment.

    • Outcome: The conviction of the defendant was ultimately quashed.

    • Importance/Application: The Jordan case is crucial for establishing that improper or negligent medical treatment, particularly if not administered in good faith, can be considered an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's initial injury and the victim's death, thereby potentially negating the defendant's criminal liability for homicide.

  • Charbonneau and Power

    • Context: These cases involved situations where a victim's death was significantly influenced by psychological factors, such as intense fear or stress, directly induced by the accused's actions or threats.

    • Outcome: The note does not detail the specific outcomes for each individual case.

    • Importance/Application: These cases are significant because they highlight that death resulting from extreme fear or stress, when demonstrably caused by the threats or psychological influence from the accused, can still form the basis for a homicide conviction. They illustrate how culpability can extend to deaths caused by the psychological impact of an accused's actions on a victim.