2. Act, Omission, Status or Circumstances 4 Consequences and Causation 8 Introduction to Mens Rea and Intent 10 Levels of Fault 11

3. Consequences and Causation

• 
  Winning 1973 ONCA
  
  • 
    Accused convicted of obtaining credit from Eaton’s by false pretences (giving false info except for her name and address). There was no evidence that the store relied on her information.
    
  • 
    Held: had Eaton’s relied on the application form in full, she would have been guilty. Credit was given in reliance of her, not the form, they only used her name and address which were correct.
    

• 
  Smithers 1978 SCC
  
  • 
    Hockey game, accused punched and kicked the deceased. Dead on arrival to hospital. Victim died on aspiration: unclear if from the kick or purely from malfunctioning epiglottis.
    
  • 
    Held: a legal cause is “any contributory cause that is beyond the de minimum range” (not trivial or insignificant)
    
    • 
      No need for the conduct to be the sole cause/main cause or even substantial cause
      
    • 
      Can be more than one actor that is legally liable
      
    • 
      It is no defence to manslaughter that the death was unexpected and the physical reactions of the victim to the assault unforeseen, or that death would not normally result from the act.
      
• 
  Harbottle 1993 SCC  TEST FOR 1^ST DEGREE MURDER
  
  • 
    The accused confined and watched as his companion assaulted a young woman. He held her legs while the companion strangled her. He was charged with first-degree murder.
    
  • 
    Held: It was planned and premeditated by both men. “Caused” is broader and can include perpetrators and those who assist in the murder.
    
  • 
    Under s.235, the accused’s actions must form an essential, substantial and integral part of the killing of the victim (higher than Smithers for manslaughter)  increased degree of moral culpability.
    
  • 
    “the gravity of the crime and the severity of the sentence both indicate that a substantial and high degree of blameworthiness, above and beyond that of murder, must be established”
    
• 
  Nette 2001 SCC
  
  • 
    Elderly woman robbed and tied up, cause of death was asphyxiation. Accused charged with 1^st degree murder on the basis of the unlawful confinement and that it was one continuous sequence of events. He was convicted of 2^nd degree murder
    
  • 
    Held: Harbottle is reserved for 1^st degree. Other homicide offences use the Smithers test. It was reworded and is now “significant contributing cause” (in order to make jury instruction more clear)
    

1. 
   Thin Skull: take your victims as you find them, does not negate legal causation
   

• 
  Smithers: malfunctioning epiglottis
  
• 
  R v Blaue 1975 England: A young woman was stabbed, needed a blood transfusion and surgery to save her life, she refused the transfusion and consequently died. The accused was charged with manslaughter. The religious beliefs did not break the chain of causation.
  

2. 
   Remoteness: if the consequences were too remote there cannot be legal causation
   

3. 
   Intervening Causes: breaks the chain of causation. It will not be an intervening act if it was dependable (dependent on the original act of the accused) or foreseeable.
   

• 
  A new event, subsequent event, act of a third party
  
• 
  Thought to be so significant in the causing or bringing about of a harm that the accused’s original act is no longer a significant cause of the harm
  

• 
  Pagett 1983 England
  
  • 
    Accused shot at police officers who were attempting to arrest him. He had with him a 16 yr old girl who was pregnant, used her body to shield himself. She was killed and he was charged with murder. Firing bullets in self defence (police officers) is not enough to break the chain of causation
    
  • 
    Police firing shots was a direct cause of the accused’s conduct – LEGAL CAUSE of the victim’s death
    
• 
  S.R. (J.) 2008 ONCA
  
  • 
    Situation similar to Pagett. An innocent bystander was hit when a gunfight broke out. The accused’s conduct was a contributing cause to her death. “But for” the decision to engage in a gun-fight, she would not have been killed.
    
• 
  Maybin 2012 SCC
  
  • 
    Test for intervening cause: is the subsequent act or event so strong or overwhelming that the accused’s contributing act is now insignificant, as to break the chain of causation?
    
  • 
    Factual causation is not limited to the direct and immediate cause, nor to the most significant cause (Smithers and Nette). Even if there was an intervening act, the same causation test still applies.
    
    • 
      Can use analytical aids: as the act reasonably foreseeable? Was it an independent act?
      
    •