Summary of Key Points Regarding Voluntariness, Intent, and Automatism in Canadian Law
| Legal Source and Topics | Key Points |
|---|---|
| R v. Rabey (1980) | |
| Definition of automatism | Unconscious, involuntary behavior |
| The state of a person who is not conscious of what he is doing | |
| Insane automatism | Malfunctioning of the mind arising from a cause internal to the accused, e.g., psychological makeup, emotional makeup, organic pathology |
| Non-insane automatism | Transient effect caused by an external factor, e.g. a blow to the head, exposure to toxic fumes |
| R v. Parks (1992) | |
| Insane automatism | Is a disease of the mind |
| Positive finding results in an NCR-MD | |
| Non-insane automatism | Is not a disease of the mind |
| Positive finding results in acquittal | |
| Burden of proof | Evidence supporting that the condition exists resides with the defense |
| Evidence supporting that voluntariness was present at the time of the offense resides with the Crown | |
| R v. Daviault (1994) | |
| Self-induced intoxication | The Leary Rule; mens rea of a general intent offense cannot be negated by self-induced intoxication, offends the presumption of innocence under the Charter |
| Wrongful intention to become dangerously drunk cannot substitute for the intention to commit a crime of sexual assault | |
| Automatism may apply in rare cases of extreme intoxication | |
| Bill C-72/s. 33.1 (1995) | |
| Voluntary intoxication | Self-intoxication is excluded as a defense for general intent in offenses related to bodily integrity |
| R v. Stone (1999) | |
| Two-step process for determination | First step is to determine existence of automatism (that the accused acted in an involuntary manner) |
| Second step is to determine whether the involuntariness is due to a mental disorder or non-mental disorder automatism | |
| Factors for consideration | Involuntariness |
| Presence of psychiatric illness | |
| Severity of triggering stimulus | |
| Corroborating evidence of bystanders | |
| Corroborating medical history of automatistic-like dissociative states | |
| Evidence of motive for the crime | |
| Whether the alleged trigger of violence is also the victim | |
| Burden of proof | The law presumes that people act voluntarily |
| The burden of proof in regarding involuntariness resides with the defense | |
| s. 33.1 (1995) | |
| Voluntary intoxication | Self-intoxication is excluded as a defense for general intent in offenses related to bodily integrity |
| R v. Sullivan (2020) | |
| Extreme intoxication | Extreme intoxication is akin to automatism |
| s. 33.1 struck down | Struck down because: |
| Breach of the principle of voluntariness of an act | |
| Impinges upon presumption of innocence | |
| Does not reach minimum standard of penal neglience | |
| Not a reasonable limit as can be justified in society | |
(Adapted from Glancy and Regehr29).