Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law — Defences — Mental disorder — Self induced intoxication — Where condition accused claims to have suffered from results from combination of disease of mind and intoxication and where judge determines, after applying approach in R. v. Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290, that defence of not criminally responsible has been shown to have air of reality, whether it falls to jury to determine whether source of accused’s incapacity is disease of mind or intoxication and to distinguish effects of disease of mind from those of intoxication — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in considering applicant’s intoxication self induced even though it could be concluded from evidence that decision to drink windshield washer fluid to commit suicide was not product of genuine choice or free will of applicant — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in ordering new trial on two original counts of first degree murder even though jury had decided, as matter of fact, that applicant had been incapable of appreciating nature and quality of his acts or of knowing that they were wrong.

The applicant Mr. Turcotte was charged with two counts of first degree murder for causing the death of his two children. At trial, he admitted causing his children’s death. The only issue was his state of mind at the time of the events. Mr. Turcotte argued that, at the time of the homicides, he was suffering from a mental disorder caused by the combined effect of a disease of the mind, a suicidal crisis and methanol intoxication that made him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or of knowing that they were wrong. The jury returned a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The Crown appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge had erred in instructing the jury on the defence of mental disorder accompanied by evidence of intoxication. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. In the Court’s opinion, the trial judge had not explained to the jury the necessary distinction between the sources of Mr. Turcotte’s incapacity.