CRIM 131 FINAL

Question 1

What is the primary focus of public law, including criminal law, in Canada?
A. Resolving disputes between private individuals
B. Governing relationships between individual provinces
C. Regulating activities that are generally legal
D. Managing the relationship between individuals and the government

Answer 1

D. Managing the relationship between individuals and the government

Question 2

How is crime defined in Canada?
A. Any action that violates civil law
B. Conduct with an “evil or injurious effect” on the public, punishable by a penalty
C. Activities governed by provincial regulations
D. Actions punishable solely under constitutional law

Answer 2

B. Conduct with an “evil or injurious effect” on the public, punishable by a penalty

Question 3

Which of the following distinguishes true crimes from regulatory offenses?

A. True crimes are minor breaches of rules, while regulatory offenses are serious breaches of values.
B. Regulatory offenses are punishable under criminal law, while true crimes are not.
C. True crimes involve serious breaches of community values, while regulatory offenses govern lawful activities.
D. Regulatory offenses are always handled by federal courts, unlike true crimes.

Answer 3

C. True crimes involve serious breaches of community values, while regulatory offenses govern lawful activities.

Question 4

What is the primary source of criminal law in Canada?
A. Provincial legislation
B. Federal statutes and case law
C. Civil law precedents
D. Municipal regulations

Answer 4

B. Federal statutes and case law

Question 5

What role do provinces play in administering criminal law in Canada?
A. They write the Criminal Code.
B. They prosecute criminal cases.
C. They oversee court and policing systems.
D. They define what constitutes a crime.

Answer 5

C. They oversee court and policing systems.

Question 6

What is the doctrine of stare decisis?
A. A system where courts must follow case precedents in a hierarchical manner
B. A process of severing or modifying unclear laws
C. A framework for writing criminal legislation
D. A principle that allows higher courts to overrule all other decisions

Answer 6

A. A system where courts must follow case precedents in a hierarchical manner

Question 7

What is the Supreme Court of Canada’s role in criminal law?
A. Drafting the Criminal Code and other legislation
B. Proposing changes to federal laws
C. Interpreting and clarifying laws, including their validity and scope
D. Enforcing decisions made by provincial courts

Answer 7

C. Interpreting and clarifying laws, including their validity and scope

Question 8

What does statutory interpretation involve?
A. Courts ensuring laws align with provincial regulations
B. Legislators clarifying court decisions
C. Courts applying and sometimes modifying laws to address gaps or errors
D. Judges rewriting laws that are outdated

Answer 8

C. Courts applying and sometimes modifying laws to address gaps or errors

Question 9

When might courts sever, read in, read down, or declare a law unconstitutional?
A. When a higher court orders the modification
B. When legislation is ambiguous, outdated, or conflicts with constitutional rights
C. When provincial courts disagree with federal decisions
D. When a law is applied incorrectly in a specific case

Answer 9

B. When legislation is ambiguous, outdated, or conflicts with constitutional rights

Question 10

What is the effect of higher court decisions on lower courts in Canada?
A. Binding on all lower courts across provinces
B. Binding only within the same province
C. Persuasive only, not binding
D. Binding on lower courts, with persuasive influence on courts of equal standing

Answer 10

D. Binding on lower courts, with persuasive influence on courts of equal standing

Question 11

What is true about the actus reus requirement for some offenses?

A. Proof of consequences is always required.
B. Proof of consequences is never part of the actus reus.
C. Proof of consequences is not always required for the actus reus.
D. Proof of consequences is irrelevant in criminal law.

Answer 11

C. Proof of consequences is not always required for the actus reus.

Question 12

Which of the following offenses does not require proof of consequences to complete the actus reus?
A. Causing a disturbance while fighting (s.171(1)(a))
B. Perjury (s.131(1))
C. Assault causing bodily harm
D. Criminal negligence causing death

Answer 12

B. Perjury (s.131(1))

Question 13

When are consequences required as part of the actus reus?
A. Only when the offense is classified as a regulatory offense.
B. When identified in the relevant Criminal Code section.
C. For all offenses involving moral blameworthiness.
D. Never, as only conduct matters in actus reus.

Answer 13

B. When identified in the relevant Criminal Code section.
Consequences are part of the actus reus only if the law for that crime says they are required.

For example:

In murder, the actus reus includes causing someone’s death, so the consequence (death) is required.
In theft, the actus reus is taking something, and no specific consequence is needed.

Question 14

According to Canadian courts, consequences are a necessary component of the actus reus:
a) In all cases
b) When the consequences are identified in the Code section
c) Only in cases of negligence
d) Never

Answer 14

b) When the consequences are identified in the Code section

Question 15

“AR WHERE NO CONDUCT” refers to cases where the accused is:
a) Performing an unlawful act
b) Found in a particular condition or state
c) Acting under duress
d) Attempting a crime without completion

Answer 15

b) Found in a particular condition or state

Question 16

Which of the following is an example of actus reus without conduct?
a) Unlawful possession of housebreaking instruments (s.351(1))
b) Committing theft in progress
c) Breaking into a house
d) Committing assault while intoxicated

Answer 16

a) Unlawful possession of housebreaking instruments (s.351(1))

Question 17

Under s. 320.14(1)(a), what must the Crown prove to secure a conviction?
a) The presence of a realistic risk of danger to persons or property.
b) That the accused intended to avoid the police.
c) That the accused exceeded the speed limit.
d) That the accused caused actual harm.

Answer 17

a) The presence of a realistic risk of danger to persons or property.

Question 18

What does a reverse onus clause do?
a) It places the burden of proof on the Crown.
b) It shifts the burden of proof to the accused.
c) It eliminates the requirement to prove an offence.
d) It prohibits the defence from presenting evidence.

Answer 18

b) It shifts the burden of proof to the accused.

Question 19

Which of the following is an example of a reverse onus clause?
a) S. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
b) S. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (now s. 320.35).
c) The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (QCHRF).
d) The necessity defence under s. 215.

Answer 19

b) S. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (now s. 320.35).
This law relates to reverse onus because it shifts part of the burden of proof to the accused in certain impaired driving cases. Here’s how:

Under s. 320.35, when breath or blood test results are presented as evidence showing impairment or a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, the court presumes the results are accurate and valid.

If the accused wants to challenge this evidence, they must prove (on a balance of probabilities) that the test was not reliable—for example, by showing the testing equipment was faulty or the procedure wasn’t followed correctly. This reversal of the usual rule, where the prosecution must prove everything, is an example of reverse onus in action.

Question 20

When is criminal liability for an omission possible?
a) When there is no pre-existing duty.
b) Only when there is a legal duty to act.
c) When the accused has no intention to harm.
d) Only if the omission occurs in Quebec.

Answer 20

b) Only when there is a legal duty to act.

Question 21

In R v. Bottineau, how was mens rea established?
a) The accused directly admitted to intending the harm.
b) Persisting in conduct that would inevitably cause bodily harm showed intent.
c) The accused had no knowledge of the harm caused.
d) The actus reus was never connected to mens rea.

Answer 21

b) Persisting in conduct that would inevitably cause bodily harm showed intent.

In R v. Bottineau (2011 ONCA 194), the mens rea (guilty mind) for murder was established through evidence of prolonged neglect and deliberate cruelty that showed intent or recklessness toward the victim’s well-being. The case involved Elva Bottineau and her partner, Norman Kidman, who were charged with the second-degree murder of Jeffrey Baldwin, their five-year-old grandson. Jeffrey died of malnutrition and untreated illnesses due to extreme neglect while in their care.

Question 22

According to R v. Whyte, why is a reverse onus clause under s. 258(1)(a) saved under the Charter?
a) It protects the presumption of innocence without exceptions.
b) It represents a reasonable limitation under s. 1 of the Charter.
c) It eliminates the requirement for intent in specific cases.
d) It aligns with the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Answer 22

b) It represents a reasonable limitation under s. 1 of the Charter.

Question 23

What does the Crown need to prove under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code?
a) An intentional course of conduct involving a motor vehicle.
b) That the accused had no intention to operate the vehicle.
c) That the accused’s actions created a remote possibility of harm.
d) That the accused was aware of all potential risks to property.

Answer 23

a) An intentional course of conduct involving a motor vehicle.
Under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, the Crown must prove that:

The accused was operating a motor vehicle, and
Their ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol, drugs, or both.
The phrase “an intentional course of conduct” refers to the Crown needing to show that the accused was in control of the vehicle and intentionally engaged in activities like driving, steering, or handling it in some way.

Question 24

Which of the following is NOT an element the Crown must prove for s. 320.14(1)(a)?
a) An intentional course of conduct.
b) A realistic risk of danger.
c) Actual harm caused to persons or property.
d) Impairment or exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit.

Answer 24

c) Actual harm caused to persons or property.

Question 25

Which case is a leading example of a reverse onus clause?
a) R v. Cooper
b) R v. Whyte
c) R v. Bottineau
d) R v. Oakes

Answer 25

b) R v. Whyte

Question 26

According to R v. Whyte, how is a reverse onus clause saved under the Charter?
a) By ensuring proportional sentencing.
b) By being a reasonable limitation under s. 1 of the Charter.
c) By protecting the rights of the accused in all circumstances.
d) By preventing reverse onus from being applied in strict liability offences

Answer 26

b) By being a reasonable limitation under s. 1 of the Charter.

Question 27

Under Canadian law, when can criminal liability for an omission arise?
a) When the accused has no legal relationship to the victim.
b) When there is a pre-existing legal duty to act.
c) When the accused’s actions were reckless but not intentional.
d) When there is no statutory requirement for the accused to act.

Answer 27

b) When there is a pre-existing legal duty to act.

Question 28

Which of the following is an example of a legal duty that can result in liability for an omission?
a) A stranger walking past an accident without helping.
b) A parent failing to provide food or medical care for their child.
c) A driver speeding on an empty road.
d) A citizen not reporting a theft they witnessed.

Answer 28

b) A parent failing to provide food or medical care for their child.

Question 29

Which province has a legal duty to rescue provision in its human rights framework?
a) Ontario
b) British Columbia
c) Quebec
d) Alberta

Answer 29

c) Quebec

Question 30

What principle was established in R v. Cooper regarding actus reus and mens rea?
a) MR must be present at the exact moment AR occurs.
b) MR must exist at some point during the offence.
c) AR and MR are unrelated and can be proven independently.
d) The Crown must prove that the accused intended every element of AR.

Answer 30

b) MR must exist at some point during the offence.
What Happened?
The accused, Cooper, strangled a woman while drunk. During the choking, he passed out and claimed he did not intend to kill her. The victim died as a result.

Key Issue:
Does mens rea (intent to harm) need to exist at the exact moment the actus reus (the choking) occurred?

Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that mens rea does not need to align perfectly in time with actus reus.

As long as the intent to harm existed at some point during the act, the accused can be held responsible.
Cooper had the intent to harm while choking the victim, even if he passed out later.

Question 31

What did the court conclude in R v. Bottineau?
a) AR and MR need to occur simultaneously for a conviction.
b) A series of actions that inevitably cause harm can establish MR.
c) The Crown must prove the exact moment when MR was formed.
d) Intent cannot be inferred from a pattern of behavior.

Answer 31

b) A series of actions that inevitably cause harm can establish MR.
Explanation of the Case:
R v. Bottineau (1977) was a case where the accused, Bottineau, was charged with manslaughter after he hit a woman during an argument, and she later died from the injuries. Bottineau’s actions over a period of time, not just one single act, were examined to establish his mens rea (MR).

Court’s Conclusion:
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that mens rea (MR) can be established from a series of actions that inevitably lead to harm, even if the intent wasn’t clear at every single moment of the actions. The court emphasized that intent can be inferred from a pattern of conduct that results in harm.

Question 32

What is the primary concern with a reverse onus clause under s. 11(d) of the Charter?
a) It removes the presumption of innocence.
b) It eliminates the need for the Crown to prove AR.
c) It prevents the accused from testifying in their own defence.
d) It contradicts the principle of double jeopardy.

Answer 32

a) It removes the presumption of innocence.
When there’s a reverse onus clause, the accused has to prove something in their defense, instead of the Crown (prosecution) having to prove that they are guilty.

Normally, the Crown must prove the accused is guilty, and the accused is presumed innocent. This is protected by section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says the accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But with a reverse onus, the accused might have to prove something, like showing they weren’t drunk while driving, or they weren’t at the crime scene. So instead of the Crown proving the accused is guilty, the accused must prove they didn’t do it.

This can seem unfair because it goes against the idea of presumption of innocence in section 11(d), making it feel like the accused is assumed guilty unless they can prove otherwise.

Question 33

How did the court justify the reverse onus clause in s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code?
a) By declaring it unconstitutional under s. 11(d).
b) By determining it was a minimal impairment of rights under s. 1.
c) By eliminating its application to strict liability offences.
d) By allowing it to be used only in specific provinces.

Answer 33

b) By determining it was a minimal impairment of rights under s. 1.

Question 34

What is the primary question assessed in factual causation?

1.Was the accused’s conduct morally wrong?
2.Did the accused contribute to the consequences?
3. Was the accused present at the scene of the crime?
4. Was the accused aware of the potential consequences?

Answer 34

2.Did the accused contribute to the consequences?

Question 35

Which test is used to determine factual causation?

Foreseeability Test

Proximate Cause Test

“But For” Test

Significant Contribution Test

Answer 35

But for test
The “But For” Test is used to determine factual causation in criminal law. It asks the question: “But for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?” If the answer is no—meaning the harm would not have happened without the defendant’s actions—then the defendant can be said to have caused the harm.

Question 36

What does legal causation focus on?
Medical evidence of death
Moral responsibility of the accused
Whether the prohibited consequences were foreseeable
The accused’s personal intention

Answer 36

Whether the prohibited consequences were foreseeable
Legal causation focuses on whether the consequences of the accused’s actions were foreseeable and directly linked to the actions in question.

Question 37

What is the key principle affirmed in R v. Nette?
Prohibited consequences must be foreseeable
The “take your victim as you find them” principle
The accused must be the sole cause of death
Only direct physical acts can cause death

Answer 37

The “take your victim as you find them” principle

Question 38

What is the stricter legal causation test used in R v. Harbottle?
Substantial and Integral Cause
Significant Contributing Cause
Minimal Contribution Cause
Direct and Foreseeable Cause

Answer 38

Substantial and Integral Cause
This test requires that the accused’s actions must be a substantial and integral part of the chain of events leading to the prohibited consequence (such as death or injury). In other words, the accused’s actions must play a significant role in causing the harm, beyond being just a minimal or incidental factor.

This test was used to determine whether the accused’s actions were directly linked to the harm caused, ensuring that causation is not too remotely connected.

Question 39

What does the “But For” test determine?

Whether the accused’s conduct was morally wrong

If the prohibited consequences would have occurred without the accused’s conduct

If the accused foresaw the consequences of their actions

Whether the accused had the intent to commit the offense

Answer 39

If the prohibited consequences would have occurred without the accused’s conduct

Question 40

Why is factual causation considered only the first stage of the causation process?

It is irrelevant to most cases

It requires additional evidence to confirm intent

Legal causation focuses on broader moral accountability

It establishes only a connection between conduct and consequences

Answer 40

It establishes only a connection between conduct and consequences

Question 41

What is required to establish causation when there are multiple causes of death?

The accused must be the sole cause of death

The accused’s actions must have a significant contributing impact

The accused must foresee all contributing factors
There must be a medical consensus on the cause

Answer 41

The accused’s actions must have a significant contributing impact

Question 42

What legal principle was emphasized in R v. Smithers?

The “but for” test

Prohibited consequences must be foreseeable

Contribution must exceed the de minimums threshold

Factual causation is irrelevant to legal causation

Answer 42

Contribution must exceed the de minimums threshold

Question 43

Which of the following is NOT one of the four key forms of subjective mens rea?

Intention
Knowledge
Foreseeability
Recklessness

Answer 43

Foreseeability

Question 44

What does “wilful blindness” refer to?

Intent to harm without knowledge of the consequences

A deliberate avoidance of knowledge of likely consequences

Acting without foresight of risk

Failure to prevent a prohibited act

Answer 44

A deliberate avoidance of knowledge of likely consequences

Question 45

What is required to establish recklessness?

Intent to commit a criminal act

Knowledge of certain consequences

Subjective foresight of risk and unjustified assumption of risk

Awareness of possible legal consequences

Answer 45

Subjective foresight of risk and unjustified assumption of risk

Question 46

How does the Charter influence subjective mens rea requirements for murder?

It allows recklessness to satisfy the mens rea requirement

It requires proof of deliberate intention or subjective foresight of risk of death

It removes the need for any proof of intent

It prioritizes moral accountability over legal definitions

Answer 46

It requires proof of deliberate intention or subjective foresight of risk of death

Question 47

What principle was emphasized in R v. Martineau (1990)?

Murder convictions require subjective foresight of death or bodily harm likely to cause death

Objective foreseeability is sufficient for murder convictions

Recklessness satisfies the mens rea for murder

Intention to harm is irrelevant in murder cases

Answer 47

Murder convictions require subjective foresight of death or bodily harm likely to cause death

Question 48

The objective test assesses whether the accused’s conduct fell below the standard of a:
a) Hypothetical reasonable person
b) Judge or jury’s expectation
c) Civil plaintiff’s perspective
d) Peer group standard

Answer 48

a) Hypothetical reasonable person

Question 49

When applying the objective test, what is a reasonable person expected to consider?
a) Their personal education or background
b) Only the laws they are familiar with
c) The risk and how to avoid it
d) Emotional responses to the situation

Answer 49

c) The risk and how to avoid it

Question 50

Under criminal law, “marked departure” means:
a) A small deviation from the standard of care
b) A standard applied only in civil liability cases
c) A significant departure from the reasonable person’s standard
d) A standard used exclusively for regulatory offenses

Answer 50

c) A significant departure from the reasonable person’s standard

Question 51

Which of the following is not typically considered when applying the reasonable person test?
a) Background of the accused
b) Knowledge of the facts
c) Physical incapacity (e.g., blindness)
d) The accused’s perception of the circumstances

Answer 51

a) Background of the accused

Question 52

What is the principle of fairness in the “reasonable person” standard?
a) Using the same standard for everyone regardless of circumstances
b) Adjusting the standard for specific risky activities requiring expertise
c) Avoiding bias in the application of the law
d) Granting leniency based on subjective perceptions

Answer 52

b) Adjusting the standard for specific risky activities requiring expertise

Question 53

The modified objective test was established in which case?
a) R v. Savoie
b) R v. Beatty
c) R v. Creighton
d) R v. Roy

Answer 53

c) R v. Creighton
The modified objective test is used to decide if someone was reckless. It checks if the accused’s actions were a big mistake compared to what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. The test looks at the circumstances around the actions to see if they were a serious departure from what would be expected.

In the case, Creighton was charged with manslaughter after injecting a person with heroin, which led to their death. The Court held that to prove recklessness, the Crown must show that the accused’s conduct “markedly departed” from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in that situation.

Question 54

Under the modified objective test, the court considers:
a) Only the circumstances facing the accused
b) Only the accused’s perception of the circumstances
c) Both the circumstances and the accused’s perception
d) Only the facts known to the Crown

Answer 54

c) Both the circumstances and the accused’s perception

Question 55

Criminal negligence causing death is defined as showing:
a) Any level of carelessness
b) Wanton or reckless disregard for safety
c) A minor lapse in judgment
d) A simple departure from the standard of care

Answer 55

b) Wanton or reckless disregard for safety

Question 56

What distinguishes dangerous driving from criminal negligence causing death?
a) Dangerous driving requires intent to harm
b) Criminal negligence involves reckless disregard and a marked and substantial departure
c) Dangerous driving requires expert testimony
d) Criminal negligence involves only civil liability

Answer 56

b) Criminal negligence involves reckless disregard and a marked and substantial departure

Question 57

Under s. 222(5) of the Criminal Code, culpable homicide is manslaughter when:
a) It involves premeditated intent to kill
b) It occurs as a result of an unlawful act or criminal negligence
c) It occurs during a robbery
d) It involves an omission without a legal duty

Answer 57

b) It occurs as a result of an unlawful act or criminal negligence

Question 58

For unlawful act manslaughter, the required mens rea includes:
a) Knowledge of the risk of bodily harm that is trivial
b) Objective foresight of a risk of bodily harm that is neither trivial nor transitory
c) Reckless disregard for property
d) Intent to cause death

Answer 58

b) Objective foresight of a risk of bodily harm that is neither trivial nor transitory

Question 59

The elevated standard of care applies when:
a) A person is charged with any criminal offense
b) A person engages in particularly risky activities requiring expertise
c) A person is unaware of the consequences of their actions
d) A person has no legal duty to act

Answer 59

b) A person engages in particularly risky activities requiring expertise

Question 60

In cases of elevated care, the reasonable person standard:
a) Is based on the general population
b) Is modified to consider expertise and training
c) Does not apply
d) Only considers regulatory offenses

Answer 60

b) Is modified to consider expertise and training

Question 61

True or False:
Where there is an elevated standard of care, the reasonable person becomes the reasonable person with the necessary expertise and training to engage in the activity.

Answer 61

True

Question 62

In R v. Savoie, the accused was charged with:
a) Careless driving
b) Criminal negligence manslaughter
c) Assault causing bodily harm
d) Unlawful possession

Answer 62

b) Criminal negligence manslaughter

Question 63

In R v. Savoie, what were the three essential elements for criminal negligence causing death?
a) Failure of duty, recklessness, and contribution to death
b) Intent, recklessness, and physical harm
c) Knowledge of risk, intent, and omission of duty
d) Circumstances, perception, and foreseeability

Answer 63

a) Failure of duty, recklessness, and contribution to death

Question 64

What type of activities are associated with regulatory offences?
a. Inherently unlawful activities
b. Inherently legitimate activities
c. Morally blameworthy conduct
d. Activities under federal jurisdiction only

Answer 64

b. Inherently legitimate activities

Question 65

Which of the following is true about true crimes?
a. They are inherently legitimate activities.
b. They fall under both federal and provincial jurisdiction.
c. They involve inherently unlawful activities.
d. They focus on negligence rather than blameworthiness.

Answer 65

c. They involve inherently unlawful activities.

Question 66

What penalty is most commonly associated with regulatory offences?
a. Imprisonment
b. Community service
c. Fines or license suspensions
d. Death penalty

Answer 66

c. Fines or license suspensions

Question 67

What is the key characteristic of absolute liability?
a. It allows a defence of due diligence.
b. Mens rea is required for conviction.
c. No mental element needs to be proven.
d. It applies only to federal offences.

Answer 67

c. No mental element needs to be proven.

Question 68

What distinguishes strict liability from absolute liability?
a. Strict liability applies only to true crimes.
b. Strict liability allows a due diligence defence.
c. Absolute liability requires proving mens rea.
d. Absolute liability allows for a presumption of innocence.

Answer 68

b. Strict liability allows a due diligence defence.

Question 69

In the Sault Ste. Marie (1978) case, what legal principle was established?
a. The distinction between negligence and recklessness
b. The three categories of offences in Canada
c. The importance of federal jurisdiction in true crimes
d. The abolishment of absolute liability

Answer 69

b. The three categories of offences in Canada

Question 70

What does the due diligence defence require the accused to prove?
a. They acted with reasonable care to avoid the offence.
b. They lacked the intention to commit the offence.
c. The offence was not inherently unlawful.
d. The penalties for the offence were excessive.

Answer 70

a. They acted with reasonable care to avoid the offence.

Question 71

According to the Charter, what is the relationship between absolute liability and imprisonment?
a. They can be combined in certain regulatory offences.
b. They are compatible only if the offence involves negligence.
c. They cannot be combined.
d. They are permitted under federal jurisdiction only.

Answer 71

c. They cannot be combined.
For absolute liability offenses, imprisonment is not allowed. These are offenses where the person is guilty just because they did the act, even if they didn’t mean to break the law. Since there is no need to prove the person intended to do something wrong, they can’t be sent to jail for these types of offenses.

Question 72

Which case determined that strict liability was a reasonable limitation of s. 11(d) of the Charter?
a. Sault Ste. Marie (1978)
b. Wholesale Travel Group Inc.
c. Reference Re Section 94(2) of the MVA
d. Lévis v Tétreault (2006)

Answer 72

b. Wholesale Travel Group Inc.

Question 73

In cases of strict liability, what is the standard of proof for the defence of due diligence?
a. Beyond a reasonable doubt
b. A balance of probabilities
c. Clear and convincing evidence
d. Presumption of innocence

Answer 73

b. A marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonable person

If someone is accused of a strict liability offense, they can defend themselves by showing that they did everything reasonable to avoid committing the offense. To prove this defense, they only need to show that it’s more likely than not that they tried their best to follow the rules. This is a lower standard of proof than having to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 74

Which case involved garbage dumping leading to water pollution and set the framework for regulatory offences?
a. Lévis v Tétreault (2006)
b. Reference Re Section 94(2) of the MVA
c. Sault Ste. Marie (1978)
d. Wholesale Travel Group Inc.

Answer 74

c. Sault Ste. Marie (1978)

Question 75

What factor is NOT considered when determining the nature of an offence as strict or absolute liability?
a. Precision of language in the statute
b. Overall regulatory pattern adopted by the legislature
c. Subject matter of the offence
d. Criminal record of the accused

Answer 75

d. Criminal record of the accused

Question 76

What does “passive ignorance” refer to in the context of due diligence?
a. Acceptable conduct for regulatory offences
b. Sufficient grounds to avoid liability
c. Insufficient defence to avoid liability
d. Evidence of absolute liability

Answer 76

c. Insufficient defence to avoid liability
In the context of due diligence, “passive ignorance” refers to a situation where someone claims they didn’t know about a problem or law but did nothing to learn or prevent it. This is not a strong enough defense to avoid liability. Just being unaware without making an effort to stay informed or take reasonable steps is not enough to prove due diligence.

Question 77

What is the general principle regarding mens rea for regulatory offences when the statute is silent?
a. Absolute liability applies.
b. Strict liability applies.
c. Criminal negligence applies.
d. Subjective mens rea applies.

Answer 77

b. Strict liability applies.
For regulatory offences, if the law doesn’t say anything about mens rea (intent), the general rule is that strict liability applies. This means the person can be found guilty for committing the act, even if they didn’t intend to break the law. However, they can still defend themselves by proving they took all reasonable steps (due diligence) to prevent the offence.

Question 78

According to s.21(1) of the Criminal Code, what must the Crown prove to establish aiding or abetting?
a. The accused actively aided or abetted the principal actor (actus reus).
b. The accused intentionally aided or abetted the principal actor (mens rea).
c. The accused was merely present at the scene of the crime.
d. Both a and b.

Answer 78

a. The accused actively aided or abetted the principal actor (actus reus).
b. The accused intentionally aided or abetted the principal actor (mens rea

Question 79

Under s.21(2), which of the following statements is true about common intention?
a. The mens rea for common intention is always subjective.
b. To withdraw, one must communicate their intent and neutralize their participation.
c. The actus reus involves assisting the principal actor directly.
d. Common intention does not hold co-offenders liable for each other’s actions.

Answer 79

b. To withdraw, one must communicate their intent and neutralize their participation.

If someone is part of a crime and wants to back out, they have to tell everyone they no longer want to be involved and stop helping in the crime. Just saying you want to stop isn’t enough; you need to take action to make sure you’re no longer part of it.

Question 80

What did the R v. Dunlop & Sylvester (1979) case establish regarding aiding and abetting?
a. The mens rea for aiding and abetting is objective intention.
b. Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish aiding or abetting.
c. Withdrawal must include neutralizing the effects of prior participation.
d. Aiders and abettors must always act with subjective foresight of consequences

Answer 80

b. Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish aiding or abetting.

Question 81

What is required to establish the actus reus for counselling an offence?
a. The accused must personally commit the offence.
b. The accused must omit to act in preventing the offence.
c. The accused must engage in conduct interpreted as counselling.
d. The accused must act recklessly.

Answer 81

c. The accused must engage in conduct interpreted as counselling.

Question 82

Which of the following is NOT a requirement to prove someone is an accessory after the fact under s.23(1)?
a. Knowledge of the commission of the crime.
b. An omission to prevent the crime.
c. Intention to help the principal offender escape.
d. An act to facilitate the offender’s escape.

Answer 82

b. An omission to prevent the crime.
Section 23(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada explains what makes someone an accessory after the fact. It looks at what the accused did after the crime, focusing on helping the main offender avoid being arrested or punished.

Not doing something to stop the crime (option b) does not count because this law is about actions that help the offender after the crime, not about failing to act before or during it.

Question 83

What must the Crown show to establish the actus reus of an attempt under s.24(1)?
a. The accused performed any act, whether preparatory or not.
b. The accused went beyond mere preparation and was proximate to the offence.
c. The accused completed all elements of the offence.
d. The accused committed the crime with subjective intention.

Answer 83

b. The accused went beyond mere preparation and was proximate to the offence.

Question 84

For conspiracy under s.465, what constitutes the actus reus?
a. Making an agreement for a common purpose to commit a criminal offence.
b. Actually carrying out the planned offence.
c. Aiding or abetting the commission of the offence.
d. Recklessly encouraging a group of people to commit an offence.

Answer 84

a. Making an agreement for a common purpose to commit a criminal offence.

Question 85

Under s.16(1), which of the following must be proven for an NCRMD defense?
a. The accused lacked the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of their act or omission.
b. The accused lacked the capacity to know the act was wrong.
c. Both a and b.
d. Neither a nor b.

Answer 85

a. The accused lacked the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of their act or omission.
b. The accused lacked the capacity to know the act was wrong.

Question 86

What is the legal test for fitness to stand trial?
a. The accused must have a complete understanding of the law.
b. The accused must have limited cognitive capacity to understand the process and communicate with counsel.
c. The accused must have no memory of the events.
d. The accused must have the ability to prove their innocence.

Answer 86

b. The accused must have limited cognitive capacity to understand the process and communicate with counsel.

Question 87

Which of the following best describes automatism?
a. A state of partial consciousness, where an individual has some control over their actions.
b. A state of impaired consciousness, with no voluntary control over actions.
c. A legal excuse for actions taken while intoxicated.
d. A mental disorder that negates mens rea.

Answer 87

b. A state of impaired consciousness, with no voluntary control over actions.

Question 88

Which of the following is a requirement to establish mental disorder automatism?
a. The accused must show the condition was medically diagnosed.
b. The accused must show the mental disorder was severe enough to interfere with forming mens rea.
c. The accused must prove they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
d. The accused must prove their condition occurred due to intoxication.

Answer 88

b. The accused must show the mental disorder was severe enough to interfere with forming mens rea.

Question 89

What is the paramount consideration when deciding dispositions for NCRMD cases?
a. The least restrictive option available.
b. The public safety.
c. The accused’s wishes and consent.
d. Judicial discretion alone.

Answer 89

b. The public safety.

Question 90

Mistake of fact asserts that:
a) The Crown failed to prove the actus reus of the offence.
b) The accused misunderstood the law.
c) The Crown failed to prove the mens rea of the offence.
d) The accused was aware of their actions.

Answer 90

c) The Crown failed to prove the mens rea of the offence.

Question 91

When assessing a mistake of fact for a subjective mens rea offence, which perspective is considered?
a) How a reasonable person would assess the facts.
b) How the victim assessed the facts.
c) How the accused assessed the facts.
d) How the Crown presented the facts.

Answer 91

c) How the accused assessed the facts.

Question 92

True or False: Canadian law requires the Crown to prove that the victim said “no” to sexual activity.
a) True
b) False

Answer 92

False

Question 93

When does no consent exist under s.273.1(2)?
a) When consent is implied through actions.
b) When consent is given by someone other than the complainant.
c) When the accused believes the complainant consented.
d) When the complainant provides verbal consent but is intoxicated.

Answer 93

b) When consent is given by someone other than the complainant.

Question 94

For sports-related implied consent, participants are deemed to consent to:
a) Any physical harm that occurs during the game.
b) Force within the bounds of fair play.
c) Harm, as long as it is not serious.
d) All harm if they agreed to participate.

Answer 94

b) Force within the bounds of fair play.

Question 95

Provocation is available as a defence to:
a) Reduce a murder charge to manslaughter.
b) Reduce any violent offence charge.
c) Acquit an accused person charged with murder.
d) Justify intentional harm in self-defence.

Answer 95

a) Reduce a murder charge to manslaughter

Question 96

What is required to establish provocation under s.232?
a) Any insult causing emotional distress.
b) A wrongful act causing the accused to lose self-control.
c) A minor insult that leads to provocation.
d) A reasonable belief that the victim was at fault.

Answer 96

b) A wrongful act causing the accused to lose self-control.

Question 97

Which of the following changes was made to the provocation defence in 2014?
a) Insults can no longer suffice as provocation.
b) Provocation is no longer a valid defence in Canada.
c) Victims must provide consent to invoke the defence.
d) Provocation applies only to charges involving bodily harm.

Answer 97

a) Insults can no longer suffice as provocation.

Question 98

Provocation is only successful if the accused lost self-control:
a) Suddenly and unexpectedly, and before regaining normal control.
b) After sufficient time to reflect on their actions.
c) Due to intoxication.
d) With evidence of extreme emotional distress.

Answer 98

a) Suddenly and unexpectedly, and before regaining normal control.

Question 99

Which of the following accurately describes intoxication as a “defence”?
a) It completely absolves responsibility for any criminal offence.
b) It asserts that intoxication negates the mens rea of an offence.
c) It reduces all charges to lesser included offences.
d) It excuses violent crimes involving bodily harm.

Answer 99

b) It asserts that intoxication negates the mens rea of an offence.

Question 100

What did the Supreme Court rule in R v. Daviault (1994)?
a) Intoxication is not a valid defence for violent crimes.
b) Intoxication akin to automatism can negate mens rea entirely.
c) Intoxication always leads to a conviction for basic intent offences.
d) Intoxication has no impact on the accused’s criminal liability.

Answer 100

b) Intoxication akin to automatism can negate mens rea entirely.

Question 101

True or False: Section 33.1 prohibits using intoxication as a defence for crimes involving bodily integrity.
a) True
b) False

Answer 101

True

Question 102

What was the effect of R v. Brown and R v. Sullivan and Chan (2022) on s.33.1?
a) It upheld s.33.1 as constitutional.
b) It declared s.33.1 unconstitutional for violating ss.7 and 11(d).
c) It restricted intoxication as a defence for all crimes.
d) It eliminated intoxication as a defence altogether.

Answer 102

a) It upheld s.33.1 as constitutional.

Question 103

Under the amended s.33.1, intoxication can only be a defence if:
a) A reasonable person would not foresee intoxication leading to automatism.
b) The accused consumed alcohol rather than drugs.
c) The accused was unconscious during the act.
d) The mens rea was formed before the intoxication occurred

Answer 103

d) The mens rea was formed before the intoxication occurred
Under the updated section 33.1, being drunk or high can only be used as a defence if the accused couldn’t have known that getting intoxicated might make them lose control and act automatically (without thinking). A reasonable person in their situation wouldn’t expect that outcome.

Question 104

What is the legal status of alcohol-induced automatism under the new s.33.1?
a) Always a complete defence.
b) Rarely a defence unless objective foreseeability cannot be proven.
c) Never a defence for violent offences.
d) Only applicable for non-violent crimes.

Answer 104

b) Rarely a defence unless objective foreseeability cannot be proven.

Question 105

What is the core issue addressed by both duress and necessity?

A) The availability of a reasonable legal alternative
B) The voluntariness of the accused’s choice
C) The proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided
D) The intent of the accused

Answer 105

B) The voluntariness of the accused’s choice

Question 106

Which of the following is not a key element of the necessity defence?

A) Imminent peril
B) No reasonable legal alternative
C) Proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided
D) The accused created the emergent situation

Answer 106

D) The accused created the emergent situation

Question 107

Which of the following is a limitation of the necessity defence?

A) It can be used to justify murder if necessary
B) It can be used if the accused creates the emergent situation (false)
C) It can be used in cases of assisted suicide (false)
D) It cannot be used to prevent legally entitled actions like land defending

Answer 107

D) It cannot be used to prevent legally entitled actions like land defending

Question 108

What was the key argument in the R v Kerr case regarding carrying a concealed weapon?

A) The accused was defending themselves with the weapon
B) The weapon was used for an unlawful purpose
C) The weapon was legally possessed
D) The accused was coerced into carrying the weapon

Answer 108

A) The accused was defending themselves with the weapon

Question 109

What is the difference between necessity and duress?

A) Necessity involves an external perilous situation, while duress involves threats by a person
B) Necessity involves threats by a person, while duress involves external circumstances
C) Necessity and duress are exactly the same in their application
D) Necessity applies only to certain crimes, while duress applies to all crimes

Answer 109

A) Necessity involves an external perilous situation, while duress involves threats by a person

Question 110

According to s. 17 of the Criminal Code, duress cannot be used as a defence for which of the following crimes?

A) Murder
B) Robbery
C) Theft
D) Assault with a weapon

Answer 110

A) Murder

Question 111

In the case of Ruzic, why was the accused denied the defence of duress under s. 17 of the Criminal Code?

A) The threat was not imminent
B) The threat was not carried out by a person present
C) The requirements of immediacy and presence were not met
D) The threat was not credible

Answer 111

C) The requirements of immediacy and presence were not met

Question 112

What distinguishes self-defence from duress?

A) Self-defence involves meeting force with force, while duress involves succumbing to threats by committing an offence
B) Self-defence is only applicable to property crimes
C) Duress is applicable in situations involving personal conflict, while self-defence is used for property protection
D) There is no distinction between self-defence and duress

Answer 112

A) Self-defence involves meeting force with force, while duress involves succumbing to threats by committing an offence

Question 113

Which of the following factors is considered when assessing whether an act of self-defence is reasonable under s.34(2)?

A) The accused’s perception of the threat
B) The physical strength of the victim
C) Whether the accused had a criminal record
D) The history of the accused’s prior convictions

Answer 113

A) The accused’s perception of the threat

Question 114

Under s.35 of the Criminal Code, defence of property is applicable when:

A) The accused is acting to prevent damage to property
B) The accused is trying to stop the police from executing a warrant
C) The property owner is not present
D) The trespasser is a minor

Answer 114

A) The accused is acting to prevent damage to property

Question 115

Which of the following is true about peaceable possession under s. 35?

A) Peaceable possession cannot be used to defend most protest-based actions
B) Peaceable possession allows an individual to defend property by any means necessary
C) Peaceable possession applies only when the trespasser is present
D) Peaceable possession is not relevant for defence of property claims

Answer 115

A) Peaceable possession cannot be used to defend most protest-based actions

Question 116

What is the primary legal change to self-defence and defence of property laws in 2013?

A) The introduction of a new section to the Criminal Code
B) A simplification from 8 provisions to 2 major provisions (ss. 34 & 35)
C) Elimination of reasonable force as a requirement for self-defence
D) The inclusion of property defence for non-property owners

Answer 116

B) A simplification from 8 provisions to 2 major provisions (ss. 34 & 35)

Question 117

Under s.34(3), defence of self-defence does not apply if:
A) The accused uses excessive force
B) The threat is from a person acting under legal authority
C) The accused is defending someone else’s property
D) The force used is not proportional

Answer 117

B) The threat is from a person acting under legal authority

Question 118

In a situation where an accused is acting to prevent a trespasser from damaging property, which of the following must be true for defence of property under s. 35(1)?

A) The accused must have peaceable possession of the property
B) The accused must use deadly force to protect the property
C) The trespasser must be actively damaging the property
D) The accused can act only if they own the property

Answer 118

A) The accused must have peaceable possession of the property