R v Zora

Last updated

R v Zora
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: December 4, 2019
Judgment: June 18, 2020
Full case nameHer Majesty the Queen v Chaycen Michael Zora
Citations 2020 SCC 14
Docket No.38540 [1]
Prior historyJudgment for the Crown in the British Columbia Court of Appeal
RulingAppeal allowed
Holding
Section 145(3) of the Criminal Code requires subjective mens rea
Court membership
Chief Justice Richard Wagner
Puisne Justices Rosalie Abella, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown, Malcolm Rowe, Sheilah Martin, Nicholas Kasirer
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Martin J
Laws applied
Criminal Code s 145(3) [now ss 145(4) and 145(5)]

R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14 is a case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously that the offence of breaching bail conditions under the Criminal Code requires subjective mens rea . [2] [3]

Contents

Background, facts, and procedural history

The Criminal Code defines a number of offences known as administration of justice offences. Such offences concern an accused's behaviour while he or she is involved in the criminal justice system, as opposed to conduct that results in criminal charges in the first instance. [4] The case of R v Zora concerns the administration of justice offence of breaching bail conditions: failing to comply with rules stipulated by the court as a condition precedent to govern an accused's conduct while the accused is out on bail pending trial.

Chaycen Zora had been charged with drug possession under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and was released on bail with several conditions. [5] One of these conditions was that he would answer the door when the police came to check on him. [6] Due to his failure to comply with this condition, Zora was charged with an offence under section 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

Zora was convicted at trial and his appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal was dismissed. [7] [8] The Court of Appeal held that the statute required an objective, not a subjective, standard of mens rea, and that Zora failed to meet the standard. In essence, the statute required the Crown to prove that Zora's failure to comply with his bail condition represented a "marked departure from what a reasonable person in the same situation would do," [9] not that Zora either intended to breach his bail condition, knew that he was breaching it, or was reckless as to whether he breached it or not.

Before the Supreme Court's decision in Zora, Canadian law was not consistent as to whether breach of bail conditions required subjective or objective mens rea. Courts in some provinces adopted one standard, while those in other provinces came to the opposite conclusion. [10] Because criminal law in Canada is defined by federal statute but interpreted and enforced by provincial courts and administrators, breach of bail conditions had become a different offence in different provinces.

Reasons of the Court

Justice Sheilah Martin, writing for a unanimous court, held that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the statute only required proof of objective mens rea. Rather, s 145(3) requires a subjective standard. She held, following the Court's jurisprudence in R v Sault Ste-Marie (City of) and subsequent cases including R v ADH, 2013 SCC 28, that s 145(3) should be presumed to involve a subjective standard of fault and that the presumption was not displaced. [11] Justice Martin acknowledged that the Criminal Code had been amended after Zora's trial, creating two new offences—at sections 145(4) and 145(5), respectively—to cover the offence for which Zora had originally been convicted, but noted that the substance of the offence of failing to comply with bail conditions had not been significantly changed. [12] Thus, although Zora nominally concerns the interpretation of a now-defunct statute, its holding likely applies to 145(4) and 145(5).

The Court also emphasized that bail conditions must be "clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the accused’s risks regarding the statutory grounds for detention in s. 515(10)". [13] They must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal and provincial legislation; they must be reasonably capable of being obeyed by the accused; [14] and they must be "tailored to the individual risks posed by the accused," not "a list of conditions inserted by rote."; [15] This was meant to address common practices of imposing numerous bail conditions essentially automatically, often setting up accused to fail (e.g. in the case of addiction or other psychosocial problems [16] ), and resulting in multiple convictions for bail related to charges that might well themselves not lead to any conviction. [17]

The Court identified several problems that frequently arise with routinely imposed bail conditions:

In the result, Justice Martin ordered a new trial. [24]

Commentary

Criminal defence lawyers spoke in favour of the decision, noting that it addressed broader issues in the Canadian bail system beyond the standard of fault in administration of justice offences. [25]

Related Research Articles

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Court bail may be offered to secure the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may be charged with the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

<i>R v Vaillancourt</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636, is a landmark case from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Criminal Code concept of "constructive murder". The Court raised the possibility that crimes with significant "stigma" attached, such as murder, require proof of the mens rea element of subjective foresight of death, but declined to decide on that basis. Instead, they concluded that all crimes require proof of at least objective fault, that the particular provision at issue here did not meet that requirement, and therefore that provision of the Criminal Code for constructive murder was unconstitutional.

<i>R v Creighton</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3 is a case from the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court found that the standard for criminal liability for some offences can be lowered and not offend the Charter. This case marked the last in a series of cases, beginning with R. v. Tutton, discussing the use of an objective standard for determining mens rea in criminal offences.

<i>R v DeSousa</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v DeSousa [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944, is the Supreme Court of Canada case where the Court determined the Constitutionally required level for mens rea for the charge of "unlawfully causing bodily harm". The case is one of a series of cases including R. v. Hundal and R. v. Creighton where the Court reduced the requirement for culpability for a number of crimes.

In Canadian law, a peace bond is an order from a criminal court that requires a person to keep the peace and be on good behaviour for a period of time. This essentially means that the person who signs a peace bond must not be charged with any additional criminal offences during its duration. Peace bonds often have other conditions as well, such as not having any weapons or staying away from a particular person or place. Peace bonds are similar to a civil court restraining order, and are also based on the lesser burden of proof of civil law.

<i>R v Daviault</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Daviault [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity.

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Canada</span>

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

<i>R v Tutton</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Tutton, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the mens rea requirements for criminal offences related to manslaughter. The Court was split three to three over whether two parents, believing that their diabetic child was cured by God, are guilty of manslaughter for intentionally failing to give the child his insulin.

<i>R v Swain</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on certain rights of the mentally ill in their criminal defence. The case concerned a constitutional challenge of the common law rule permitting the Crown to adduce evidence of an accused's insanity and section 542(2) of the Criminal Code, which allowed for the indeterminate detention of an accused who is found not guilty by reason of "insanity". The Court held that both the common law rule and the Code provision were unconstitutional. As a result, the Court created a new common law rule that was constitutional, and Parliament created new laws of what to do with individuals who were found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder. The parties to the case were the appellant, Swain, the respondent, the Crown, and the following interveners: the Attorney General of Canada, the Lieutenant Governor's Board of Review of Ontario, the Canadian Disability Rights Council, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the Canadian Association for Community Living.

Although the legal system of Singapore is a common law system, the criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature and historically derives largely from the Indian penal code. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating, are set out in the Singaporean Penal Code. Other serious offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

Bail in Canada refers to the release of a person charged with a criminal offence prior to being tried in court or sentenced. The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. That right is implemented by the Criminal Code, which provides several ways for a person to be released prior to a court appearance. A person may be released by a peace officer or by the courts. A release by the courts is officially known as a judicial interim release. There are also a number of ways to compel a person's appearance in court without the need for an arrest and release.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

<i>R v Brown</i> (2022) Canadian legal decision

R v Brown, 2022 SCC 18, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited an accused from raising self-induced intoxication as a defence to criminal charges. The Court unanimously held that the section violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and struck it down as unconstitutional. The Court delivered the Brown decision alongside the decision for its companion case R v Sullivan.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 38540 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ See Zora SCC. All justices of the Court agreed with the reasons of Martin J.
  3. ↑ Shane, Caitlin (June 26, 2020). "Victory at the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Zora". Pivot Legal Society. Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020. In our view, there is only one suitable standard to limit unreasonable punishment and to protect the fundamental Charter values of liberty and equality: A subjective standard that takes the into account individual circumstances of the accused person. The Court agreed.
  4. ↑ Department of Justice (July 15, 2017). The Canadian Criminal Justice System: Overall Trends and Key Pressure Points (Report). Government of Canada. Archived from the original on May 12, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020. Also of importance to the overall efficiency of the Court is the impact of charges for administration of justice offences (AOJO), such as failure to appear in court, breach of a probation order, being unlawfully at large, and failure to comply with an order.
  5. ↑ Zora SCC at para 8.
  6. ↑ Zora SCC at para 3.
  7. ↑ Zora CA at para 69.
  8. ↑ Novakovski, Mike (April 26, 2019). "Breaching recognizance mens rea is objective not subjective". Blue Line. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  9. ↑ Zora CA at para 2.
  10. ↑ Zora SCC at para 31.
  11. ↑ Zora SCC at para 4.
  12. ↑ Zora SCC at para 18.
  13. ↑ Zora SCC at para 6.
  14. ↑ Zora SCC at para 87
  15. ↑ Zora SCC at para 88
  16. ↑ Zora SCC at para 79.
  17. ↑ Zora SCC at para 54.
  18. ↑ Zora SCC at para 92.
  19. ↑ Zora SCC at para 93.
  20. ↑ Zora SCC at para 94.
  21. ↑ Zora SCC at para 95.
  22. ↑ Zora SCC at para 96-97.
  23. ↑ Zora SCC at para 98-99.
  24. ↑ Zora SCC at para 123.
  25. ↑ Balakrishnan, Anita (June 18, 2020). "Zora decision finds subjective mens rea applies to bail conditions, breaches". Canadian Lawyer. Archived from the original on June 20, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.