Yes. I'm not entirely sure that I understand the question, but I think it's about what is extreme self-induced intoxication in this context. The bill does spell it out for us in subsection 33.1(4): “extreme intoxication means intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour.”
I'll avoid a discussion of how to determine the inability to control behaviour, but I think this has to be situated in the context of the other negligence provisions, essentially, that have been included in here. This rendering a person incapable of consciously controlling their behaviour is in the context of somebody who has, as Ms. Dunn pointed out, self-ingested an intoxicant, and this is in the context of somebody who has departed markedly from the standard of care.
This raises a lot of questions. What is the standard of care of a reasonable person in these circumstances? I think these questions have to go by a case-by-case kind of basis. We also have the element of the reasonable person, the foreseeability of the harm...these kinds of negligence elements that have been included.
For instance, in the Brown case, we were talking about somebody who ingested magic mushrooms and then essentially had no control. The question is, would this have been captured in this clause? Is it reasonable for a person to know what their behaviour would be when taking those types of illegal drugs?
The reasonable standard, is that something...? In some cases, for some people who have a history of certain types of abuses, of interference, with bodily harm, in those circumstances they should be aware, as a reasonable person, that they're likely to engage in this type of behaviour, but when people take intoxicants that are illegal, it's not like we go to the pharmacy and we see what the potential side effects are.... The question of whether or not something is foreseeable probably has to go through a case-by-case basis.