I was using the term “dangerous intoxication” to refer to the approach that was suggested by the Supreme Court, one of the two approaches whereby there could be a stand-alone offence, but there are some rules in the common law about the different degrees of intoxication, and those were established in the 2007 decision, I believe, in R. v. Daley. It's a Supreme Court of Canada decision, and they go over the three degrees of intoxication in the criminal law.
There's mild intoxication, which is never a defence to any crime in Canada. There's advanced intoxication, which could be a defence to specific-intent crimes like murder. Then there's extreme intoxication, which can be a defence to crimes of general intent, violent offences such as sexual assault or assault. Those are the three degrees of intoxication that we have in the common law.
It's important to note that even advanced intoxication, in which someone is very inebriated—they can't tie their shoes and they have difficulty driving—would not be a defence in the vast majority of violent offences in the Criminal Code that are general intent offences.