15 Pages Posted: 19 Nov 2013
Date Written: November 19, 2013
This commentary focuses on the Supreme Court of Canada's latest decision on provocation, the Cairney judgment from Alberta. In it, I critique the majority’s approach to the “suddenness” element in provocation, suggesting that it was: (1) questionable in light of the statutory language, jurisprudence and historical rationale of the defence; (2) troublesome given the facts of the case; (3) likely to have undesirable ramifications in future for a host of actors who might otherwise claim provocation; and (4) wrongly driven, at least in part, by a mistaken desire to assess provocation as a justification based defence, rather than an excuse.
Keywords: Criminal law, provocation, justification, excuse, Canadian criminal law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Sankoff, Peter, R. v. Cairney: Predictable Responses and the Shrinking Defence of Provocation (November 19, 2013). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2357151 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2357151