Case Set #1

Question 1

R. v. Blondin: What happened?

Answer 1

The accused was charged with importing narcotics.

Question 2

R. v. Blondin: Where were these drugs found?

Answer 2

In scuba-diving equipment that the accused was trying to bring into Canada.

Question 3

R. v. Blondin: What did the accused admit?

Answer 3

He knew there was something illegal in the tank but did not attempt to find out what it was.

Question 4

R. v. Blondin: What did the courts find?

Answer 4

Him guilty of the offense even though the actus reus of the offense requires knowledge that the substance being imported was a narcotic.

Question 5

R. v. Blondin: What specifically did the courts find?

Answer 5

That the accused was willfully blind to what was in the tank, and therefore the knowledge requirement was satisfied.

Question 6

R. v. Tutton and Tutton: What happened?

Answer 6

Their young son was a diabetic in need of insulin, but the Tuttons believed he would be cured by faith and stopped giving him his medication.

Question 7

R. v. Tutton and Tutton: What happened to the child?

Answer 7

The child died and the parents were charged with criminal negligence.

Question 8

R. v. Tutton and Tutton: What did lawyers for the parents argue?

Answer 8

That the parents acted in the best interests of their child and were therefore not negligent.

Question 9

R. v. Tutton and Tutton: What did the Crown argue?

Answer 9

That any reasonable parent would have been able to foresee that without his required medication, the child would die, and since the parents failed to provide medical treatment for their child, they were guilty of negligence.

Question 10

R. v. Tutton and Tutton: Where was the case appealed to?

Answer 10

The Supreme Court of Canada

Question 11

R. v. Pontes: What happened?

Answer 11

The accused was convicted of driving while prohibited, that is, he already had his license to drive removed due to a previous conviction.

Question 12

R. v. Pontes: What did the British Columbia Motor Vehicles Act provide?

Answer 12

That a person convicted of such an offense could be sentenced automatically without notice and fined up to $2000.

Question 13

R. v. Pontes: What did Pontes do?

Answer 13

Appealed his conviction, arguing that the law violated s. 7 of the Charter, denying him liberty without following the principles of fundamentla justice.

Question 14

R. v. Pontes: What did the Supreme Court do?

Answer 14

Denied the appeal and upheld the absolute liability offense on the grounds that the accused was not in danger of imprisonment and thus his liberty was not at risk.

Question 15

R. v. McSorley: What happened?

Answer 15

Boston Bruins’ Marty McSorley was convicted of assault in the slashing of rival Vancouver Canuck Donald Brashear during an NHL game.

Question 16

R. v. McSorley: What did McSorley’s lawyer try to argue?

Answer 16

That violence was part of the game of hockey and “the laws of the land don’t typically apply.”

Question 17

R. v. McSorley: What did the Crown successfully argue?

Answer 17

That “the act depicted is such an excessive act of violence and so gross it in its delivery that it must engage criminal law.”

Question 18

R. v. Parks: What happened?

Answer 18

In 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the acquittal of Kenneth Parks.

Question 19

R. v. Parks?: What did Kenneth Park do?

Answer 19

Drove to the home of his parents-in-law some 20 km away, and stabbed his mother-in-law to death, and seriously injured his father-in-law.

Question 20

R.v. Parks: What did his defense successfully argue?

Answer 20

That Mr. Parks was sleepwalking at the time and thus acted involuntarily.

Question 21

R.v. Parks: What did the courts accept?

Answer 21

The defense of automastic in this case of sleepwalking, saying that Mr. Parks was apparently sleepwaking when he committed his crime.

Question 22

R. v. Parks: What did his lawyers argue?

Answer 22

Automatism, and brought in expert witnesses who testified that Mr. Parks did suffer from sleepwalking and that it was possible for him to commit such a crime while sleepwalking.

Question 23

R.v. Parks: What was his outcome?

Answer 23

Parks was acquitted.

Question 24

R.v. Parks: What did the Crown appeal?

Answer 24

They argued that the defense should have been mental disorder

Question 25

R.v. Parks: What did the Supreme Court of Canada uphold?

Answer 25

The acquittal and the sleepwalking defense.