Thank you, Ms. Diab, for the question.
“Self-induced” means you took the intoxicant yourself, whether it's alcohol, drugs or whatever. Self-induced refers to how you took them and that you took them of your own accord. Hence, that puts a bracket around what we're doing.
“Extreme intoxication” has been interpreted by the courts as something akin to a state of automatism. This means your body is functioning, but you're not in control of it. I think that's the easiest way to put it. Your limbs are moving and in rare cases you are capable of doing extreme acts, but you're not controlling yourself anymore. It is a rare set of circumstances. Legally, it has been carved out of a number of different things, so there is a carve-out here.
What we are doing is recognizing that the manner in which you entered that state of automatism matters, even though you did it yourself. In most cases, when it was reasonable for you to predict that there might be a loss of control, that there would be a loss of self-control, or that there might be a violent outcome, you will still be held responsible for whatever you did. If it was sexual assault, you will still be responsible for sexual assault. If it was manslaughter, you will still be responsible for manslaughter.
The only rare exception is if there was something that meant you couldn't have known, shouldn't have known or ought not to have known according to an objective, reasonable standard. If you got prescription pills for the first time and it couldn't have been predicted—nobody would have known or you couldn't possibly have known—that you would have this outcome, you might have a chance, if it provoked that state of automatism.
Again, you have to reach that state and you have to prove that state. Then it's up to the Crown to show that you could have predicted, should have known or otherwise ought to have known.