Abstract
Parliament enacted section 33.1 of the Criminal Code in 1995, in direct response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1994 decision in R. v. Daviault. Through this provision, it set out to remove the reach of the extreme intoxication defence from accused persons charged with personal violence offences, where their intoxication was self-induced. Parliament justified the imposition of criminal responsibility in these cases on the moral blameworthiness of voluntary intoxication, notwithstanding the majority’s ruling in Daviault that doing so offends the Charter. It was not until 2021 — more than 25 years after the enactment of section 33.1 — that the Charter issue came before the Court for hearing. In the much-anticipated case of R. v. Brown, the Court ruled that section 33.1 violates sections 7 and 11(d) and is not saved by section 1. Remarkably, just 25 days after the Brown decision was handed down, Parliament enacted a new section 33.1 in an effort to once again to limit the availability of the extreme intoxication defence. On this occasion, however, Parliament’s efforts were guided — and its ambitions tempered — by the Court’s clear articulation in Brown of minimum Charter requirements. This paper offers a summary of the Brown ruling. It then describes the constituent parts of the new section 33.1 and attempts to construct an analytical framework for the provision’s application in future cases. It concludes with a discussion of legal, evidentiary and practical issues that counsel and courts might soon encounter in those cases where the extreme intoxication defence is advanced, not least of which is concern about the differential treatment of accused persons based on intoxication symptoms.
Citation Information
Lawrence, Michelle S..
"Self-Induced Extreme Intoxication: Brown and Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
115.
(2024).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1454
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol115/iss1/12
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
References
1 R. v. Daviault, [1994] S.C.J. No. 77, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3406/antiq.1994.1184
2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter "Charter"].
3 I. Grant, "Second Chances: Bill C-72 and the Charter" (1995) 33 Osgoode Hall L.J. 379 at 383-385, online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=ohlj. See also Canada, House of Commons, "The Defence of Extreme Intoxication akin to Automatism: A Study of the Legislative Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision R. v. Brown Report to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights", 44th Parl., 1st Sess. (December 2022) (Chair: R. Sarai), online: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Reports/RP12157974/justrp10/justrp10-e.pdf at 9-11. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1653
4 I. Grant, "Second Chances: Bill C-72 and the Charter" (1995) 33 Osgoode Hall L.J. 379,online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=ohlj. See also M. Lawrence, "Voluntary Intoxication and the Charter: Revisiting the Constitutionality of Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code" (2017) 40:3 Man. L.J. 389. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1653
5 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
6 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced intoxication), S.C. 1995, c. 32.
7 M. Lawrence, "Voluntary Intoxication and the Charter: Revisiting the Constitutionality of Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code" (2017) 40:3 Man. L.J. 389. https://doi.org/10.29173/mlj1001
8 M. Lawrence, "Voluntary Intoxication and the Charter: Revisiting the Constitutionality of Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code" (2017) 40:3 Man. L.J. 389 footnote 11. https://doi.org/10.29173/mlj1001
9 M. Lawrence, "Voluntary Intoxication and the Charter: Revisiting the Constitutionality of Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code" (2017) 40:3 Man. L.J. 389 footnote 10. https://doi.org/10.29173/mlj1001
10 See, inter alia, R. v. Peters, [2014] B.C.J. No. 1096, 2014 BCSC 983 (B.C.S.C.); R. c. Côté, [2013] J.Q. no 4843, 2013 QCCQ 4485 (Que. S.C.) and R. v. Bonnell, [2015] N.B.J. No. 18, 2015 NBCA 6 (N.B.C.A.).
11 H.A. Kaiser, "Bouchard-Lebrun: Unduly Limiting Toxic Psychosis and Reigniting the Dangerous Intoxication Debate" (2012) 89 C.R. (6th) 68 at 48.
12 R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11298-022-3079-2
13 R. v. Sullivan and R. v. Chan were decided together: [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.).
14 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.EEM.0000815560.21388.e2
15 An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Self-Induced Extreme Intoxication), S.C. 2022, c.11.
16 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 15, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
17 Appellant's Factum in R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 3, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39781/FM010_Appellant_Matthew-Winston-Brown.pdf.
18 Appellant's Factum in R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 3, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.), online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39781/FM010_Appellant_Matthew-Winston-Brown.pdf.
19 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 19, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.5553/TvK/1871-41022022018003007
20 R. v. B. (M.W.), [2019] A.J. No. 1809, 2019 ABQB 770 (Alta. Q.B.).
21 R. v. Brown, [2020] A.J. No. 294 at para. 87, 2020 ABQB 166 (Alta. Q.B.), affd [2022]S.C.J. No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
22 R. v. Brown, [2021] A.J. No. 1028, 2021 ABCA 273 (Alta. C.A.), revd [2022] S.C.J.No. 18, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
23 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 4, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
24 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 4, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v18i3.7712
25 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 7, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.18356/27887154-2021-102-2
26 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 4, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.), citing R. v. Sullivan, [2020] O.J. No. 2452 at para. 288, 2020 ONCA 333 (Ont. C.A.).
27 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 4, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
28 Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, "Supreme Court clear that Drunkenness Alone is not a Defence in Sexual Assault Cases" (May 13, 2022), online: https://www.leaf.ca/news/supreme-court-clear-that-drunkenness-alone-is-not-a-defence-in-sexual-assaultcases/.
29 Forensic psychiatrists N. Mathews and D. Morgan presented the contrary perspective at the Forensic Psychiatry Education Day held on December 5, 2022 for the UBC Forensic Psychiatric Division & BC Chapter of the Canadian Academy of Psychiatry and the Law in Vancouver, B.C.
30 The Crown did so successfully in Dow v. R., [2010] J.Q. No. 8999, 2010 QCCS 4276(Que. S.C.).
31 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at paras. 67-72, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406783432-71
32 Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] S.C.J. No. 104, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835(S.C.C.).
33 R. v. Mills, [1999] S.C.J. No. 68, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2167-4086.1999.tb00552.x
34 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 70, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
35 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 70, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
36 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406783432-71
37 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406783432-71
38 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406783432-71
39 R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, [2011] S.C.J. No. 58, 2011 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781897425909.059
40 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 77, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.4140
41 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 77, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.4140
42 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 71, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406783432-71
43 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 85, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
44 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 88, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.EEM.0000815560.21388.e2
45 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 90, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
46 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 95, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
47 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 96, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
48 R. v. Leary, [1977] S.C.J. No. 39, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29 (S.C.C.).
49 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 103, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
50 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 103, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
51 R. v. Morrison, [2019] S.C.J. No. 15, 2019 SCC 15 (S.C.C.), cited in R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 104, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
52 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 104, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
53 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 119, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
54 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 119, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
55 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 124, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2138/gselements.18.2.124
56 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 127, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
57 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at paras. 136-137, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.2138/gselements.18.2.136
58 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 145, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
59 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 166, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
60 The retrial did not proceed because the Crown withdrew the charges: D. McFadden, Telephone Communication (May 6, 2023).
61 Bill C-28, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Self-Induced Extreme Intoxication), S.C. 2022, c. 11.
62 Two Parliamentary Committees completed reviews of the amending legislation. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reported the outcome of their review in "The Defence of Extreme Intoxication akin to Automatism: A Study of the Legislative Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision R. v. Brown; Report to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights", 44th Parl., 1st Sess. (December 2022) (Chair: R. Sarai), online: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Reports/RP12157974/justrp10/justrp10-e.pdf. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reported the results of its study in Senate, Canada "Self-Induced Extreme Intoxication and Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, Report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs" (April 2023) (Chair B. Cotter), online: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/441/LCJC/Reports/2023-04-27_LCJC_SS-2_C-28_Report_e.pdf.
63 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 82, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
64 R. v. Sullivan, [2020] O.J. No. 2452 at para. 83, 2020 ONCA 333 (Ont. C.A.).
65 R. v. Daviault, [1994] S.C.J. No. 77, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.3406/antiq.1994.1184
66 R. v. Stone, [1999] S.C.J. No. 27, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9963(01)80012-1
67 M. Lawrence & S.N. Verdun-Jones, "Blurred Lines of Intoxication & Insanity: An Examination of the Treatment at Law of Accused Persons Found to have Committed Criminal Acts while in States of Substance-Associated Psychosis, where Intoxication was Voluntary" (2015) 93 Can. Bar Rev. 1.
68 M. Lawrence & S.N. Verdun-Jones, "Blurred Lines of Intoxication & Insanity: An Examination of the Treatment at Law of Accused Persons Found to have Committed Criminal Acts while in States of Substance-Associated Psychosis, where Intoxication was Voluntary" (2015) 93 Can. Bar Rev. 1 at 203-18.
69 R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, [2011] S.C.J. No. 58, 2011 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). See also M. Lawrence, "Drugs-Induced Psychosis: Overlooked Obiter Dicta in Bouchard-Lebrun" (2016) 32 C.R. 151.
70 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 82, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
71 See R. v. LaBelle, [2022] O.J. No. 5294 at para. 99, 2022 ONSC 6628 (Ont. S.C.J.).
72 See, for example, R. v. Paul, [2011] B.C.J. No. 155, 2011 BCCA 46 (B.C.C.A.).
73 R. v. Paul, [2011] B.C.J. No. 155, 2011 BCCA 46 (B.C.C.A.). In Paul, the accused was convicted on multiple counts of second degree murder and attempted murder. He committed these offences while in a substance-induced psychotic state, the onset of which followed the consumption of alcohol, cocaine and cannabis. He claimed to have acted in response to auditory command hallucinations directing him to kill his friends and himself, so that they might "wake up to a better life" (para. 31).
74 S. Coughlan et al., Annual Review of Criminal Law 2011 (Toronto: Carswell, 2012) at 205-211.
75 R. v. Le, [2019] S.C.J. No. 34, 2019 SCC 34 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.18356/b43659f7-fr
76 See R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 93, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.) and H. Parent, "La constitutionnalité de l'article 33.1 du Code criminel: analyse et commentaires" (2022) 26 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 175, cited therein.
77 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 16. Crown applications for relief under s. 16 are reportedly rare. Research suggests that Crown counsel are not proactive in their use of s. 16. See M. Lawrence & S.N. Verdun-Jones, "Delusions of Justice: Results of Qualitative Research on the Management in British Columbia of Cases Involving Allegations of Substance-Induced Psychosis" (2015) 14 Crim. L.Q. 499.
78 R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, [2011] S.C.J. No. 58, 2011 SCC 58 (S.C.C.) and M. Lawrence, "Drugs-Induced Psychosis: Overlooked Obiter Dicta in Bouchard-Lebrun" (2016) 32 C.R. 151.
79 See, inter alia, R. v. Turcotte, [2013] J.Q. no 10269, 2013 QCCA 1916 (Que. C.A.); R. v. Cramer, [2014] B.C.J. No. 1323, 2014 BCSC 1166 (B.C.S.C.); R. v. Alexander, [2014] B.C.J. No. 562, 2014 BCSC 554 (B.C.S.C.); and R. v. Coogan, [2021] B.C.J. No. 237, 2021 BCSC 217 (B.C.S.C.). See also A. Butler et al., "Prevalence of Mental Health Needs, Substance Use, and Co-occurring Disorders Among People Admitted to Prison" (2022) 73:7 Psychiatric Services 737, online: https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.202000927?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed.
80 See A. Carroll et al., "Drug-associated Psychosis and Criminal Responsibility" (2008) 26 Behavioral Sciences & the Law 633 for a discussion of the alternate pathways by which a psychotic episode can present in association with substance use. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.817
81 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 145, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
82 R. v. Brown, [2022] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 166, 2022 SCC 18 (S.C.C.).
83 R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, [2011] S.C.J. No. 58 at para. 28, 2011 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1639/079.028.0206
84 M. Lawrence, "Voluntary Intoxication and the Charter: Revisiting the Constitutionality of Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code" (2017) 40:3 Man. L.J. 389 at footnotes 103-106. See also Recommendation 2 of Senate, Canada, "Self-Induced Extreme Intoxication and Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, Report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs" (April 2023) (Chair B. Cotter), online: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/441/LCJC/Reports/2023-04-27_LCJC_SS-2_C-28_Report_e.pdf.
