Justice committee  I believe it was Professor Stewart, and also Mr. Russomanno, who pointed out the proportionality question. My understanding of what they were concerned about was the replacing of the idea of proportionality with the idea of reasonableness as the last factor in self-defence. In ot

Justice committee  In—

Justice committee  I think the drafting convention in English is to have the “and” between the last two items in a list, but not to have it in French. I think if you look in all the other areas of the bill, it is consistent—

Justice committee  The “and” is there in English, but it is not there in French. I couldn't explain to you why that is, but I do think that is a firm drafting convention.

Justice committee  I only want to say that the committee may wish to add other types of relationships, interactions, or knowledge that the parties have with each other, but I would urge the committee to be cautious about changing the language that's presently there, just because I think it was deli

Justice committee  My first suggestion would be that if it was something the committee wanted to do, it should be formulated as a new subparagraph and not attached to this one. This would keep this idea distinct and undiluted. The Canadian Bar Association mentioned situations in which there was no

Justice committee  Yes. I think I would agree with Mr. Goguen's comments. This particular factor was deliberately drafted to focus attention on.... It doesn't use the terminology “battered spouse” and so on and so forth, but the concept that emerges from jurisprudence in relation to those issues

Justice committee  I can try to clarify that. The first element of self-defence is the reasonable perception of the accused that there is a threat. The second element is the accused's subjective intention to act for a defensive purpose and not another purpose. Both of those requirements are certa

Justice committee  I can respond with my own words from Tuesday. This is not quite the same as what I was suggesting that the current approach is. If I look at the English version of what you've proposed, the act that is committed has to be found to be reasonable. If we say, “From the circumstanc

Justice committee  Where the words “the act that constitutes the offence” are employed, I think what the drafters were getting at was that it's the act that forms the subject matter of the charge.

Justice committee  Right. I'm sure that's the way the courts will understand it. I don't really see how a Canadian who picks up the law and reads it would be confused by what he's permitted to do or not permitted to do. The same goes for police officers applying this legislation to a particular si

Justice committee  No.

Justice committee  I can just add that one way to look at it is to keep in mind that the way defences operate is that you can only claim a defence if, in fact, you are found to have committed an offence. You don't need to claim self-defence if, for instance, you didn't have the mens rea to commit t

Justice committee  You're acquitted on the basis of a defence that exonerates you from an offence you have committed.

Justice committee  I'm simply trying to illustrate that there is a bit of a paradox that I think is inherent in the language, no matter how it is drafted. If you take murder as the best example, you can claim self-defence to a murder charge and be acquitted, but it's quite clear that you have commi