When it comes to homicide charges in Canada, there are various degrees and classifications that determine the severity of the offence and potential punishments. While the most serious charge is murder, either in the first or second degree, manslaughter charges represent the next level down in culpable homicides under Canadian criminal law.
Culpable homicide refers to an unlawful killing that involves an element of intent, recklessness, or criminal negligence on the part of the offender. This includes the most serious offences like murder, as well as lesser offences like manslaughter, where the killing was unintentional.
Manslaughter itself can be divided into two main categories: voluntary and involuntary. In this post, Harpreet Saini, a leading manslaughter defence lawyer serving Mississauga, takes a look at what constitutes voluntary and involuntary manslaughter charges in Canada. We will also discuss the key differences between the two, potential defences, and the consequences if convicted.
Let’s get started.
What Is Voluntary Manslaughter?
Voluntary manslaughter applies when someone commits culpable homicide that would ordinarily constitute murder but where the offence is mitigated or reduced due to circumstances surrounding the incident. More specifically, Section 232 of the Canadian Criminal Code states that culpable homicide that may otherwise be considered to be murder may be considered manslaughter whenever the accused acted “in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.”
To successfully argue voluntary manslaughter, two key elements must be proven:
- That the conduct or actions of the victim amounted to legal provocation as defined by subsection 232(2) of the Criminal Code.
- That, as a result of this provocation, the accused was deprived of self-control and acted in the heat of passion before having time for that passion to cool.
Some examples that could potentially constitute legal provocation include the victim:
- Physically assaulting or threatening the accused.
- Sexually assaulting the accused or their family member.
- Making extremely inflammatory insults or slurs related to factors like race, gender, sexuality, et cetera.
- Engaging in the destruction of the accused’s property.
It is worth noting that successfully raising the provocation defence does not result in a full acquittal; it simply reduces what would otherwise be a murder charge to manslaughter, for which the accused can still face significant penalties.
What Is Involuntary Manslaughter?
Unlike voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter does not require any specific intent to cause death or bodily harm. Instead, it applies when someone commits an unlawful act or shows reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others, and that act or disregard causes the death of another person.
There are essentially two forms of involuntary manslaughter:
- Via Unlawful Act
- Via Criminal Negligence
Manslaughter by Unlawful Act
This refers to situations where the accused commits an unlawful act (other than an illegal act causing negligible risk) that unintentionally but foreseeably causes the death of another person. For example, if someone committed an assault and battery that inadvertently resulted in the victim’s death, that could constitute an unlawful act of manslaughter.
A critical 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision (R. v. Creighton) helped establish the legal test for so-called unlawful act manslaughter. In this case, the accused had unlawfully injected a large quantity of cocaine into the victim, which caused them to suffer a cardiac arrest and die. The Court found that manslaughter falls into “the class of offences where a mental element concerning the consequence must be established.” More specifically, at minimum, the accused must have objective foresight of the risk of bodily harm that could arise from the unlawful act.
So, in the Creighton case, a reasonable person injecting cocaine (an unlawful act) would reasonably foresee a risk of harm or death to the person injected. Contrast this with a situation where someone pushed another person and happened to fatally strike their head on the ground in a freak occurrence. The accused may not have reasonably foreseen that risk and may not qualify as manslaughter by unlawful act.
Manslaughter by Criminal Negligence
The other type of involuntary manslaughter charge relates to situations where the accused causes death by showing reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others through a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.
Some examples where so-called criminal negligence manslaughter charges could potentially apply:
- Criminally negligent operation of a vehicle that causes a fatal accident
- A property owner failing to address known safety risks that lead to a fatal incident
- A manufacturer continuing to produce or sell a product known to be unsafe and defective, causing death
To gain a conviction for criminal negligence manslaughter, the Crown must demonstrate both:
- That the accused engaged in conduct amounting to a “marked and substantial departure” from the standard expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.
- That the accused showed a reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.
Potential Defences Against Manslaughter
Depending on the specific circumstances, those charged with either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter may be able to raise partial or full defences. Some potential defences include:
Self-Defence
Under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, an individual is justified in using reasonable force to defend themselves or another person from the unlawful use or threatened use of force, provided they had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used against them. The courts will consider factors like the nature and imminence of the threat, size/gender/age differences between parties, weapons involved, and the relationship history between the individuals.
If the self-defence was reasonably executed, it could potentially serve as a full defence, resulting in an acquittal. Or it could mitigate a murder charge down to manslaughter if the self-defence was deemed partially justified.
Necessity
There is a limited “necessity” defence where the accused can argue they committed a criminal violation because they honestly believed on reasonable grounds that they were in imminent risk of harm or peril and had no reasonable legal alternative course of action. Successfully raising necessity would hinge on demonstrating that:
- There was no other choice available to avoid greater harm.
- The accused had reasonable grounds for their belief.
- The criminal act itself was proportionate to the circumstances.
As the Supreme Court outlined in R. v. Latimer, the necessity defence is restricted to establishing involuntariness or compulsion; that the accused was forced to act in a certain way because no reasonable legal alternatives existed. It does not allow defendants to rationalize or justify their actions based on their personal moral preferences. Succeeding with a necessity defence for manslaughter would be extremely difficult, given how stringent the legal test is.
Mental Disorder
If the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time that rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature and consequences of their actions, or of knowing that those actions were wrong, they could potentially be found not criminally responsible. This could serve as a full defence resulting in a verdict of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder” rather than a manslaughter conviction.
However, the mental disorder defence has become quite difficult to establish in Canada over recent decades due to reforms to the insanity provisions under Section 16 of the Criminal Code and a more restrictive legal test being applied. The accused would likely need to provide compelling medical evidence and have an expert assess whether the threshold was met for a mental disorder defence.
Intoxication
In some circumstances, evidence that the accused was in a state of extreme intoxication, either from drugs or alcohol, could potentially raise what is known as the “organic mind” defence. The idea is that the accused was in such a state of acute intoxication that they were unable to form the minimal intent required for a crime like manslaughter.
This defence tends to be very limited in application and difficult to substantiate. The courts have ruled it cannot apply for crimes like murder where no minimum intent is even required. But, in some cases, it could potentially downgrade a manslaughter charge further to a different offence that does not require intent.
Sentencing for Manslaughter Convictions
If an accused is ultimately convicted of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, they face potentially severe penalties and sentences. From a legal standpoint, manslaughter is treated as an extremely serious criminal offence.
Manslaughter carries a potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment. While that maximum sentence is rarely applied, it does indicate just how seriously the justice system views these offences involving the death of another person.
For cases where a firearm was used in the commission of manslaughter, there is a minimum sentence of four years in jail that must be imposed by the judge. But, in general, manslaughter sentences tend to vary quite significantly based on all the particular facts and circumstances.
Some of the key factors that can impact manslaughter sentencing include:
- The degree of moral guilt and intentionality of the accused’s conduct.
- Whether the manslaughter was closer to murder or a completely unintentional accident on the field.
- The accused’s criminal record and personal circumstances.
- The presence of aggravating or mitigating factors.
- Whether a firearm or weapon was involved.
- The need for sentencing parity with other similar cases.
- Presentencing custody credits if the accused was detained pending trial.
- The accused’s chances for rehabilitation and reintegration.
With all those factors assessed, manslaughter sentences can range anywhere from a suspended sentence with probation, to 2-3 years, 5-10 years, or even up to 15+ years in the most severe cases that were close to murder on the spectrum of moral culpability.
Overall, a manslaughter conviction leads to life-altering consequences that extend far beyond the actual legal sentence. It may follow someone around for years or decades as a source of discrimination, making it difficult for them to reintegrate into society. Beyond jail time, a manslaughter conviction results in severe stigma and lifelong consequences that can impact employment, travel, housing and personal relationships.
While not as severe as a murder conviction, a manslaughter charge is still extremely serious business in the Canadian criminal justice system. Those facing such charges should seek a defence lawyer for manslaughter in Mississauga immediately. Start exploring your options and ensure that your rights are fully protected throughout the process.
This post provides a basic understanding of the differences between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter under Canadian law, the key legal tests, possible defences, and the impacts of a conviction. Contact a trusted manslaughter defence lawyer in Mississauga like Harpreet Saini to defend your interests in this serious situation.