Case information

Criminal law — Offences — Criminal negligence causing death — Causation — Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence did not establish that the respondent caused the deceased’s death in fact — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to distinguish between factual and legal causation — Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it reversed the trial judge’s finding of a deliberate misrepresentation by the respondent of the extent of the deceased’s examination by EMS

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.

The respondent, a police officer, arrested a woman on an outstanding warrant. The respondent believed her to be intoxicated by methamphetamine upon arrest; she was agitated but alert and ambulatory. An EMS supervisor attended the scene; he did not examine the woman directly but did not express any reservations about her being held in custody. Unbeknownst to the respondent and the EMS supervisor, the woman had already ingested a toxic amount of methamphetamine. The respondent transported her to another location to transfer her to the custody of another police force. Upon arrival, the woman could not speak, sit up, or respond to commands. The respondent told his counterparts from the other force that her condition had not changed and that she had been “looked at” by EMS. The other police officers took the woman to a police lockup. Twenty-five minutes later, another officer summoned EMS, who transported the now-unresponsive woman to the hospital. She died approximately one hour later as a result of methamphetamine toxicity.

The respondent made certain factual admissions at trial that the Crown relied upon to prove that he caused the woman’s death in fact and in law. The trial judge agreed and convicted the respondent of criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life; the Court of Appeal disagreed and substituted an acquittal for criminal negligence causing death, but maintained the conviction on failing to provide the necessaries of life.