Canadian Criminal Law/Defences/Intoxication

General Principles
Generally, intoxication does not excuse a criminal act where the accused has the requisite intent. As it were a "drunken intent is nonetheless an intent." R. v. Canute, 1993 CanLII 403 (BCCA) at 49

The law recognizes three degrees of intoxication:
 * 1) Mild Intoxication: alcohol-induced relaxation of inhibitions and acceptable behaviour. This does not affect the mens rea of an offence
 * 2) Advanced Intoxication: intoxication to the point of the accused lacking any specific intent to an offence. There is a impairment of the accused's foresight of the consequences of his acts, raising a reasonable doubt on the requisite mens rea. This will only apply to specific intent offences.
 * 3) Extreme Intoxication:  intoxication to the point of automatism-like state. This degree of intoxication negates the voluntariness of the accused's actions. It is a rare defence that only applies to non-violent offences (as per s. 33.1)

Offences of violence
Section 33.1 will exclude intoxication as a defence for general intent offences or involuntariness due to intoxication where the following conditions are met:
 * 1) the accused was intoxicated at the time of the offence;
 * 2) the intoxication was self-induced; and
 * 3) the accused departed from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society by interfering or threatening to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person

This section applies to any mental condition that arises directly from a state of intoxication, including toxic psychosis.

Case Digests

 * R. v. Cassan (E.R.), 2012 MBCA 46