Thank you for your question.
According to the Supreme Court, the former version of section 33.1 presumed negligence on the part of the accused at the time of consumption, without the Crown having to prove it. The former version therefore allowed an individual to be found guilty if they had been in a state of intoxication similar to automatism, but could not have foreseen that it would happen, and they committed an act of violence against another person while intoxicated. The intent of former section 33.1 was to find an individual guilty of the act of violence, such as a sexual assault or manslaughter.
However, the old version could have convicted a person who had committed an act of violence while in an altered mental state and unable to control their actions. That is the main reason invoked to claim a violation of fundamental rights.
The new version of section 33.1 corrects the problem by redefining sexual assault, assault and manslaughter offences. The new definition rests not on the intentional and voluntary nature of the act of violence committed by an individual, but on the negligent nature of consuming an intoxicating substance that could lead an individual to lose control and become violent.
Henceforth, the Crown must prove that there was negligence linked to consumption, creating a risk of violence. That is now an essential point. If the Crown establishes that the individual was not sufficiently diligent while consuming, and if the resulting violence diminishes an hour later, the individual may be found guilty of this violence due to negligence on their part while they were consuming.