firework-828652_640.jpg

If you or a loved one has been charged with an offence dealing with a violent act, the accused should contact a lawyer immediately to understand the crime, examine and discuss the facts and prepare for trial.

  • Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life (215)
  • Criminal Negligence (220)
  • Administering a Noxious Substance (245)
  • Overcoming Resistance (246)
  • Criminal Harassment (264)
  • Uttering Threats (264.1)
  • Common Assault (266)
  • Assault Causing Bodily Harm (267)
  • Assault with a Weapon (267)
  • Aggravated Assault (268)
  • Assault Peace Officer (270)
  • Kidnapping and Unlawful Confinement (279)
  • Trafficking in Persons (279.01-04)
  • Hostage Taking (279.1)
  • Abduction of a Young Person (280-286)
  • Extortion (346)
  • Intimidation (423)
  • Animal Cruelty (445, 446)

A common charge is criminal negligence. Under s. 219(1), criminal negligence is established where an accused, in doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that it is his or her legal duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

The mental element in criminal negligence is the same for both acts of commission (doing) and omission (failing to do): R. v. Tutton, 1989 103 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392. To establish the offences …of criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm, the Crown had to establish not only the criminally negligent act or omission but also causation in fact and in law:  R. v. Nette, 2001 SCC 78 [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488 (at paras. 44-48).

On the question of proof of factual and legal causation:

With respect to the issue of factual causation, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s criminally negligent act of omission or commission was a significant contributing cause of the death/bodily harm in question: R. v. Nette, 2001 SCC 78

For criminal negligence causing death/bodily harm, legal causation is made out when the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the death or serious harm that resulted fell well within the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm created by the accused’s criminally negligent act of omission or commission:  R. v. Shilon, (2006) C.C.C. (3d) 401, 2006 41280 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4896 (C.A.) leave to appeal refused, [M.S. v. The Queen, [2007] 2 S.C.R. vi].

Request Callback

Contact our office today for a free consultation. Our lawyers attempt to return calls in 24 hour notice.

Shodivd be Empty: