A.

Elements of the Offence [II-1-12]

B. Voluntariness [II 16 22]
R v. Lucki
1. Hutt v. the Queen: s. 213(1)
Cannot beIIguilty
driving in the wrong lane C.
hisFraud
act was&involuntary
to snow
B.
Consent
85 -of103
Consentdue
II 104
- 119
Facts: Solicitation of P.O. What does Solicit
R v. Wolfe
mean?
Some intent necessary for crime sufficient evidence that it was a reflex action
Rule: Solicit requires it to be pressing and
R v. Makin
persistent
No objective evidence to support fear; act of assault was voluntary
Ryan v. The Queen
2. R v. Grilo: s. 212(1)(j)
Accused could not claim involuntariness when he pulled the trigger and killed during armed
Facts: Boyfriend living with prostitute
robber; He had done a number of voluntary acts leading up & his reaction was probable and
girlfriend
foreseeable.
Rule: The offence requires an element of
Voluntariness - Constitutionalized by Daviault!
exploitation to avoid overinclusiveness and
C. Omissions [II-24 41]
distinguish legitimate living situations
General:
3. R v. Lohnes: s. 175(1)(a)
You cannot be held liable for an omission unless you had a LEGAL DUTY to act
Facts: Neighbour threatened with gun; is it a
1. Fagan v. Police
public disturbance?
Facts: Wouldnt move car off P.O.s foot. Charged with assault
Rule: s. requires 1) commission of
Rule: Omission cannot support assault (intentional crime); remaining in car
enumerated acts and 2) act must create
and not moving was considered a voluntary act rather than omission
public disturbance.
2. R v. Miller s. 433(arson) [careful analogizing not a general rule]
Reasoning: requires something more than
Facts: fell asleep and set fire to mattress let it burn and caused damage
mere emotional upset; must interfere with
Rule: He became under a duty once he realized he had started a fire to do
ordinary and customary use of the public
something
place.
3. Moore v. The Queen
4. R v. Davis: s. 346
Facts: Cyclist refused to identify himself to P.O. P.O. had a duty to identify
Facts: App. Got girls to pose naked. How to
in order to uphold law; thus this was an obstruction (basically making up
define anything in S. 346?
acommon-law duty)
Rule: Anything given wide, unrestricted
4. R v. Thornton: Common Law Duty to refrain from conduct which could
application.
cause injury
A. Causation & Homicide [II 43 56]
B. Intervening Cause [II 64 71]
1. R v. Smithers: UAM s. 222(5)(a)
1. R v. Smith
Facts: Kick after hockey causes death
Facts: Soldier was stabbed in fight, treatment was negligent and he died
Rule: Crown only needs to show unlawful act Rule: If the initial cause remains an operating and substantial cause: death
was contributing cause beyond de minimus
can be said to have resulted from the initial wound. (This is UK Test)
range.
2. R v. Maybin
2. R v. Nette: 2nd degree
Facts: Bar Fight; Maybins punch deceased several times; bouncer punches
Facts: Left elderly woman hog-tied and she
once.
died
Factors: 1) Whether intervening cause was objectively and reasonably
Rule: Causation standard for all murder is:
foreseeable 2) whether the intervening act was an independent factor that
Significant Contributing Case beyond De
severed the causal chain.
Minimus Range
Rule: Still need to look at Smithers-Nette Test Who was significant
3. R v. Harbottle: s. 231(5)
contributing cause?
Facts: App. Held legs of girl while friend
C. Joint Endeavour [II 72 76]
killed her
1. R v. JSR:
Rule: Causation standard under this s. is
Facts: Eaton Center shoot-out; charged with murder of girl though his bullet

A. Sexual Assault II 78 - 83
S. 271 Assault + Sexual element
1. R v. Jobidon
S. 265(3)(c): No consent is obtained
(10 y)
Facts: Charged with UAM Predicate
by Fraud
S. 272 Sex Asslt + BH, Thrts or Wpn
Offence was Assault; This was a
1. R v. Cuerrier
(14 y)
consensual brawl where one man ended Facts: HIV+ and has unprotected sex
S. 273 Aggravated (Wounds, maims,
up dead
w/o informing women
disfigures or endangers life) (Life)
S. 265 (1): A person commits an
Test: When Fraud Vitiates Consent
[See P. II-77 for assault provisions]
assault when , Without Consent applies
a) Dishonesty: Objective Test: Would
force intentionally.
reasonable person find it
1. R v. Chase
dishonest.
Facts: Broke into house and fondled 15 Analysis: explicit reference to what
constitutes invalid consent in 265(3)
b) Deprivation: Exposing person to
y/o girl
does not negate common law
significant risk of serious bodily
Rule: Does not require Contact with
considerations
harm
genitals
Rule: Adults cannot consent to
Note: Court is split 4-2-1 on this
Test: Viewed in light of all
2. R v. Mabior [HIV Specific]
circumstances was the touching sexual intentionally apply force causing nontrivial bodily harm
Facts/Issue: When is the risk of harm
or carnal to a reasonable observer?
2. R v. J.A.
significant in cases on non-disclosure of
2. R v. V(KB)
Facts: Consenting couple choking
HIV status [s. 273 aggravated sexual
Facts: Dad grabbed sons genitals to
during sex; she woke up after passing
assault]
show him it hurt; does sexual assault
out with dildo in anus.
Holding: Uphold the Cory Standard in
require sexuality?
Rule: Consent in s. 271 requires actual
Cuerrier
Rule: Does not require sexual
subjective consent
Test: There must be a realistic
gratification it is intent and body part
Rule: Requires actual active consent
possibility that HIV will be transmitted
that is important
throughout every phase of sexual
(i.e. no condoms, high viral load.
Holding: this was an intrusion of his
activity.
sons sexual integrity; an act of
domination
MENS REA SPECTRUM
Absolute Liability
Objective
Mixed
Subjective
Definition
True Crimes = positive
Criminal Neg. s. 202(1)
1. Modified Objective
1. Subjective
state of mind required
wanton or reckless
Objective standard that Subjective
Strict Liability = Public
disregard for lives or
allows consideration of
Both AR elements
Welfare
safety of other.
certain attributes of
have subjective MR
Absolute Liability =
S. 269: Unlawfully
accused
req.
Legislature explicitly
causing bodily harm:
2. Subjective
2. Willful Blindess
requires no MR
Objectively dangerous
Objective
deliberate ignorance
act
i.e. Assault causing
3. Recklessness
Objective foresight of
bodily harm;
aware of dng bodily harm
aggravated sexual
persists
assault [267; 273]
4. Intentional

Examples

Sault Ste. Marie:

Pollution offences;
accused can use due
diligence as defence to
strict liability
Motor Vehicle
Reference:
AL and imprisonment
cannot be combined
Constitutionalizatio Vaillancourt:
n of Mens Rea
- All Murder requires
Objective Foresight of
Death
MURDER OFFENCES:
A. Crime
B. CC Provision
Unlawful Act
s. 222(5)(a): A person
Manslaughter
commits culpable homicide
when he causes the death of a
human being by means of an
unlawful Act

Criminally
Negligent
Manslaughter

Murder
(2nd degree)

R v. Barron:
Criminal Negligence
requires a marked and
substantial departure
from the standard of a
reasonable person in the
circumstances.

R v. Hundal: M.O.
Dangerous Driving
Objective in context

R v. Martineau: SubSub
R v. Briscoe
R v. Buzzanga
R v. Docherty
R v. Hinchey

Martineau: s. 230 is
toast
- Constitutional
minimum is Subjective
foresight of death

Symmetry:
Every AR element must
have a corresponding
MR.

Proportionality:
Moral
blameworthiness
must be proportional
to stigma attached to
crime

C. Case Law
1. R v. Creighton
Facts: Injection of cocaine by accused caused the death of deceased;
what is proper MR
PO: Unlawful act MR = Objectively dangerous
Death: AR = death MR = Objective foresight of bodily harm
Ratio: McLachlin argues that perfect symmetry is not necessary MS can
have lower MR because of sentencing discretion (no mandatory
minimum).
s. 222(5)(b): A person
1. R v. Barron
commits culpable homicide
Facts: At a party accused pushed friend, who fell down stairs and died.
when he causes the death of a Rule: There must be a marked and substantial departure from the
human being by criminal
Standard of a reasonable person
negligence
MR: Objective test only takes account of age; no allowance for
drunkenness, etc.
s. 229(a): Culpable Homicide
1. R v. Simpson (229(a)(ii)) means to cause bodily harm
is murder where the person
Facts: Assaulted two women and left them for dead
who causes death MEANS to
Rule: Accused must have SUBJECTIVE knowledge that intended injury is
cause his death; or means to
likely to cause death
cause him bodily harm that
2. R v. Cooper
he knows is likely to cause his
Facts: Accused choked victim but blacked out during assault
death, and is reckless whether Rule: MR requires SUBJECTIVE intent to cause bodily harm & SUBJECTIVE
death ensues or not
knowledge that bodily harm is likely to result
Ratio: MR must be present at time of act, but need not be present
throughout entire act.

s. 229(b): Culpable Homicide

is murder where the person
means to cause death or bodily
harm but causes death to
another person by accident
s. 229(c): Culpable Homicide
is murder where the person for
an unlawful object does
anything he knows is likely to
cause death.

Planned and
Deliberate

s. 231(2): Murder is first

degree when it is planned and
deliberate

Infanticide

s. 233: If female causes death

to newborn by a willful act or
omission while not fully
recovered from effects of
giving birth

1. R v. Droste
Ratio: the fact that the intended victim was not the one killed does not
matter.
Causation: Remains Smithers-Nette Standard
Transferred Intent: All that is required is the intent to kill a human
being; or intent to cause bodily harm with knowledge that death is likely
to result.
1. R v. JSR
Facts: Joint Endeavour case Eaton center shooting
Test: Must prove that accused 1) for an unlawful object 2) did anything 3)
he knew (subjective) was likely to cause death 4) and causes death
(Smithers-Nette)
2. R v. Shand
Facts: Went to drug dealers to steal pot; accused drew gun and shot
killing deceased
Rule: s. 229(c) requires that accused was pursuing an unlawful object
and had subjective foresight that death is likely
Ratio: there is sufficient culpability based on underlying act being
morally blameworthy combined with subjective knowledge of likelihood
of death.
1. R v. Droste
Facts: Used gas to set fire to his car to kill his wife; kids ended up dying;
can he be guilty of P&D murder where wrong people died?
Rule: Planning and deliberation relate to intention to kill only identity of
victim is unimportant due to s. 229(b)
2. R v. Aalders
Facts: accused shot and killed deceased he robbed his house and
waited with gun
Rule: Planning and deliberation are separate elements that each must be
proved BRD
Defn: Deliberate means considered and not impulsive; planning =
calculated/designed in advance of crime.
1. R v. LB
Facts: Mother killed her two newborn babies charged with 1st degree
murder
Rule: Infanticide is both an indictable defence and a mitigating defence
to murder
Elements: Must show objective foreseeability of bodily harm (akin to
manslaughter)
It is the unique actus reus that distinguishes infanticide from other
homicides

Parties to an
Offence

s. 21(1): Anyone is a party

to an offence who a)
commits it or b) aids or c)
abets

OTHER OFFENCES:
A. Crime
B. CC Provision
Willful
s. 319(2): everyone
Promotion of
who willfully promotes
Hatred
hatred against any
identifiable group.
Dangerous
Driving

s. 249

1) Mother 2) suffering from effects of birth or lactation 3) causation 4)

death
1. R v. Briscoe
Facts: Group lured in girl and took to golf course where where she was
raped and beaten to death accused drove and stood by
AR is very fact specific (think what action or omission did they do to
assist)
MR requires 1) intention to assist and 2) knowledge that perpetrator
intends to commit crime (knowledge can be imputed on theory of willful
blindness)
Note: Intent is only intent to assist no intent as to the commission of
the crime.
2. R v. Rochon
Facts: Mother allows son to grow pot on her farm and is on the property
during it.
Rule: Passive presence is not enough to establish party liability; Liability
for an omission requires a duty to act (whether principle or offender).

C. Case Law
1. R v. Buzzanga and Durocher
Facts: Appellants handed out flyers that were meant as satire made
statements against French Language Schools
Analysis: Wilful requires there to be an intention to promote hatred
Rule: It must have been their conscious purpose to promote hatred OR they
must have foreseen that promotion of hatred was certain or morally certain.
1. R v. Hundal
Facts: Guy driving dump truck caused accident did crown have to prove
intent?
Test: Modified objective Objective but open to accused to raise a reasonable
doubt as to whether a reasonable person would have been aware of the risks
Rule: It is negligence but you can look at surrounding circumstances and
events
2. R v. Beatty
Facts: crossed centre line momentary act of negligence sufficient?
Actus Reus: Driving in a manner dangerous to the public w/ regard to all
circumstances
Mens Rea: Conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of
care that a reasonable person would observe in the accuseds circumstances
3. R v. Roy
Facts: Driving down a dark foggy highway, ended up in wrong lane transport
killed pass.

Unlawfully
Causing Bodily
Harm

Causing Public
Disturbance
Extortion

Assault

DEFENCES:
A.
Defence
Mistake
of Fact

Mens Rea: Whether in light of all relevant evidence a reasonable person would
have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it (must be a marked departure
from standard of care)
Holding: in this case a single momentary error was not enough to support
conviction.
s. 269: Anyone who
1. R v. DeSousa
causes bodily harm is
Facts: During a fight at party appellant threw bottle, which ricocheted and hit
guilt of an indictable
victim.
offence
P.O: AR = anything prohibited except absolute liability offences; MR =
Objectively Dangerous
B.H: AR = Bodily Harm results; MR = Objective Foresight of Bodily Harm
s. 175(1)(a): R v.
AR: 1) Commission of enumerated act 2)Create disturbance
Lohnes
Disturbance = 1) Overtly/externally manifested 2) interference with ordinary
and customary use of the premises and 3) must have been reasonably
foreseeable.
s. 346(1):
R v. Davis:
AR = Accused is guilty if he, with the intent to obtain anything by threats,
accusations, menaces or violence induces any person to do anything or cause
anything to be done
anything is to be given a broad and unrestricted meaning.
s. 265: Assault when:
s. 267 Weapon or BH
s. 268 Aggravated ASSLT s.269 UBH
a) without consent
in committing assault:
Unlawfully causes bodily
applies force
A) Anyone who
harm is guilty of up to 10
intentionally
A) Weapon involved, OR
commits an
years
b) attempts or threatens B) Causes Bodily Harm
assault and
if there is present ability Up to 10 years
wounds, maims,
See MR Requirement:
to effect purpose
disfigures or
Act must be objectively
c)while openly wearing a
endangers life
dang.
weapon he accosts,
Up to 14 years
Obj. foresight of B.H.
impedes, or begs

B.
CC/Principles
* Operates as a
negation of MR
(not a true

C. Test/Rule

D. Case Law

AR

MR

Touching
Sexual Nature

Objective
Objective

1. Pappajohn v. The Queen

Facts: Some consensual sex Woman runs out in
bondage files complaint

defence)
S. 8(3)
Common law
defences
continue
s. 273.2: belief
in Consent not a
defence

NCR

s. 16: No
Criminal
responsibility
when mental
disorder
rendered person
incapable of
appreciating
nature OR
Knowing that it
was wrong.

No Consent:
(complainant)
a. Subjective
Belief of
complainant.

2 elements:
(accused)
1. Intention to
Touch
2. Knowledge or
reckless or W.B.
to lack of
consent

b. If out of fear it
is vitiated [fear
need not be
reasonable or
communicated]
Honest but Mistaken Belief:
8. After Ewanchuk there must be
evidence that complainant
communicated consent
9. A subjective belief that the
complainant was giving
consent in her mind is not
enough
Part I Mental Disorder:
a) The first step is to establish a
disease of the mind on a
BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES
b) Legal term for judge to decide
* then either II(a) or II(b) must be
est.
Part II(a):
Part II (b):
DOM renders
DOM renders
accused incapable accused
of appreciating
incapable of
the nature and
knowing that
quality of the act. the act was
wrong
This requires high
threshold
Must lack
debilitation [i.e.
knowledge of
you think your
either :
squeezing an
orange but youre
Legal Wrong
strangling
OR
someone
Moral Wrong

Rule: Rape is a true crime and requires actual

subjective Mens Rea (intention or recklessness) **
Mistake need not be reasonable Honest Mistaken
belief in consent
2. Sansregret v. The Queen
Facts: consensual relationship ended, man threatened
woman; offered sex to calm him down.
Rule: Accused cannot claim honest mistake where he
was willfully blind to the lack of consent he was aware
of need for inquiry based on circumstances
3. R v. Ewanchuk
Facts: Girl fondled during interview in the back of a
truck.
Rule: Implied consent will NOT support this defence
must be communicated by words or actions.
4. R v. Tutton
Facts: Parents withheld insulin based on religious
beliefs
Rule: For criminal negligence offences the honest but
mistaken belief must be OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE.
1. Cooper v. the Queen
Rule: Awareness includes cognition, emotional &
intellectual.
2. R v. Abbey
Facts: Bringing drugs into country; delusional belief
that he was protected from prosecution
Rule: No need to understand penal consequences just
physical consequences
3. R v. Chaulk
Facts: Broke into home and killed occupants; claimed
they suffered from paranoid psychosis & believed they
were above law and had right to kill.
Rule: wrong includes not knowing it was against the
law OR that it was morally wrong [according to ordinary
moral standards of reasonable members of society.
4. R v. Oomen
Facts: Paranoid delusional psychosis believed
roommate was part of conspiracy to kill him so he shot
her to death
Rule: Knowing means both an ability to know right
from wrong AND the capacity to apply that knowledge
in the situation.

(chaulk)

Automati
sm

Common law

1. Presumption of
Voluntariness
The accused must establish on BOP
that the act was not voluntary
2(a). NMD Automatism:
Acquittal
Presumption that it springs from
mental disease must be disproved.
2(b). NMD Automatism: s.16
Look at 3 factors to determine
1) Internal Cause
2) Ongoing Danger
[help
determine
3) Policy Concerns
whether
MD]
Contextual objective test (IC):
- Very specific to automatism
normal person in same
circumstances

Intoxicati
on

s. 33.1:
Not a defence
when
intoxication
leads to lack of
general intent
where accused
departed
markedly from
standard of care.

1. For general intent crimes the

accused must prove on a balance of
probabilities that he was in a state
extreme intoxication akin to
automatism or insanity
2. Daviault defence is available for
non-violent crimes of general intent.
3. s. 33.1 makes in inapplicable to
crimes that include an element of
assault, or interference with
integrity of a person.

2. R v. Rabey
Facts: Inexplicable fit of rage caused guy to hurt his
friend.
Rule: Ordinary stresses of life cannot constitute an
external factor leading to automatism this was
disease of mind (internal)
3. R v. Parks
Facts: Sleepwalker kills his in-laws.
Continuing Danger: Should be treated as MD
Internal Cause: psychological problems treated as MD
4. R v. Stone
Facts: Wife yells at guy he stabs her to death
Rule: Sets up the test for Automatism
IC: Judge must apply a contextual objective test
evidence of an extremely shocking trigger required to
establish a normal person might have reacted the same
way in the circumstances.
5. R v. Luedeke
Facts: Guy woke up having sex with a girl
remembered nothing
Rule: Judge must consider risk of triggering factors
recurring not just risk of further danger to public.
1. R v. Leary
Rule: Intoxication is not defence to general intent
crimes
2. R v. Bernard
Facts: after a night of drinking accused forced
complainant to have sex with him and caused serious
bodily injury
Rule: No clear majority but upholds Leary rule MR is
proved by reference to presumption that you intend the
natural and probably consequences of your actions.
3. R v. Daviault
Facts: Accused drank a bottle of brandy and sexually
assaulted woman

SelfDefence

Necessity

s. 34: not guilty if:

1) believe on reasonable
grounds that force is being
used against them or
another person;
2) act committed for
purpose of defending
themselves; and
3) act committed is
reasonable in
circumstances

Common Law:
It is an
*If its
EXCUSE; It is
natural
wrong but
emergenc acceptable in
y
circumstances
Note: Mod.
Obj. is more
sub for
defences that
offences

Duress
* If its a
human

Cinous Elements: 34(2)

(repld)
1) Existence of
unlawful assault
2) Reasonable
apprehension of
death or grievous
bodily harm
3) Reasonable belief
that it is not
possible to preserve
oneself except for
killing.
* There is a subjective
and objective component
to each element.
Perka-Latimer Test:
1) Imminent Peril/Emergency
Modified objective obj. w/ situation,
characteristics
2) No reasonable legal alternative
Modified objective obj. w/ situation
and characteristics
3) Proportionality btw harm
inflicted and harm avoided
Objective must accord w/ community
standard
* no clean hands requirement (unlike
U.S.)

Principals:
s. 17: requirements
1) Immediate threat of
death or grievous bodily

Holding: Leary rule is unconstitutional b/c it

substitutes MR for crime with intentional act of
becoming intoxicated
Rule: Accused must establish on a BOP that he was in
a state of extreme intoxication akin to insanity or
automatism.
1. R v. Lavallee
Facts: appellant killed her boyfriend during a fight
there was significant amount of evidence to establish
battered woman syndrome.
Rule: requires 1) a reasonable apprehension of
imminent death or grievous bodily harm and 2) a lack
of alternatives to self-help
Note: this case stands for proposition that expert
evidence of BWS is allowed modified objective
standard (reasonable in context of relationship.
2. R v. Cinous
Facts: murdered criminal accomplice out of fear they
were planning to kill him.
Rule: there must be an air of reality to evidence to
put to jury (it is a question of law.

1. R v. Morgentaler
Rule: cannot rely on subjective belief in necessity to
disregard explicit CC Provisions.
2. R v. Perka
Facts: Drug smuggler claim they were forced ashore
by storm
Rule: In addition to test: There is no burden on
accused; if you create the emergency it is not a real
emergency; if it was foreseeable it seems like less of an
emergency
3. R v. Latimer
Rule: Adds to Perka test with modified objective
standard
Holding: There was no air of reality to any of the 3
requirements
Parties: common law defence
1. R v. Hibbert
Facts: forced at gunpoint to lure friend
Ruzic - Ryan Test:
out who was then shot several times
1) threat of death or bodily harm
Rule: Proper standard for common law
made against the accused or a

harm
2) Person who is present
3) Reasonable belief it will
be carried out
4) Not one of enumerated
serious crimes

Provocati
on

s. 232: A wrongful act or

insult that is of such a
nature as to deprive an
ordinary person of selfcontrol is provocation
knocks murder down to
manslaughter.

third party
2) Reasonable belief it will be carried
out (MO)
3) No Safe Avenue of escape
(modified obj.)
4) Close temporal connection btw the
threat and the harm threatened
5) Proportionality betw the harm
threatened and harm inflicted
(Modified Objective)
6) Not a party to conspiracy or
criminal association.
MO = reasonable person similarly
situated with same personal
characteristics.
* Ruzic basically harmonizes the
defences: differences remain in the
excluded offences and the application to
parties as opposed to principals

defence is the same as necessity

(modified objective test)
2. R v. Ruzic
Facts: Forced to import drugs; could not
go to corrupt police.
Rule: presence and immediacy
requirements are unconstitutional
duress creates situation of moral
involuntariness that cannot be punished
under the charter (daviault)
3. R v. Ryan
Facts: Wife attempts to have husband
murdered because he is abusive
Rule: Remains of s. 17:
1) Threat of death or bodily harm
directed against the accused or a
third party
2) Must believe the threat will be
carried out
3) Not on list of excluded offences
4) Cannot be party to conspiarcy
Heat of Passion
1. R v. Hill
Requirements:
Facts: Killed guy for making homosexual
1) A wrongful act or insult that advances
would have caused an
Rule: Jury is entitled to use common sense to
ordinary person to be
apply ordinary person standard, but, no peculiar
deprived of self-control
characteristics
2) Sudden and unexpected
2. R v. Thibert
3) In fact cause accused to act Facts: guy killed his wifes lover
in anger
Rule: Ordinary person is same age and sex can
4) Before he had time to
account for things that would give act or insult
recover normal control.
special significance
3. R v. Parent
Facts: Killed his estranged wife after she insulted
him
Rule: Anger is a consideration but is not enough
to support defence of provocation
4. R v. Tran
Facts: Brutal stabbing of wife and her lover
Rule: Objective standard is to be contextualized
not personalized i.e. racial slurs are probably
legit; adultery probably not.

Miscellaneous:
R v. Hinchey

R v. Docherty
R v. Buzzanga
R v. Nurse
R v. Buttar

Where definition of crime contains no MR terms and it is not negligence assume Subjective MR
Intent:
Wilful Blindness = Deliberate ignorance; if a party has his suspicions aroused, then deliberately omits to
make any inquiry, he is deemed to have knowledge
Recklessness = When one who is aware of the danger that his conduct could bring about a prohibited result
nevertheless persist despite that risk
Wilfully in a statute requires knowledge at a minimum you cannot willfully breach a probation order w/o
knowledge that your actions will do so.
Conscious purpose = highest level of MR; You either have to have conscious purpose to do the prohibited
act or cause prohibited result OR Actual foresight that the prohibited result was certain, or substantially
certain to result.
s. 268/269 MR = Subjective MR for assault & Objective Foresight of Bodily harm
Example of subjective objective approach Require willfulness of setting fire to clothes but just
objective foresight that it might turn into a larger fire (rationalized because of lower penalty than arson so
lower MR is coo)