Right, and those are very important considerations. I appreciate the complexity of that and how section 1 of the charter operates, yet here we have a professor of law saying that the burden on the Crown is almost impossible. For example, if we were to take R. v. Brown, the Crown might have advanced pretty compelling evidence that Brown ought to have known what the effect of consuming vast amounts of alcohol and combining that with magic mushrooms might be and would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, but then Mr. Brown, on a balance of probabilities, would have to prove only that he was not acting unreasonably—maybe he had never consumed magic mushrooms before, for example, so he could not have known what the effect would be—and he would walk away a free man. It seems unreasonable to common people, non-lawyers. Do you have a comment about that?
On October 24th, 2022. See this statement in context.