section 219(1)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Section 219(1) makes it a criminal offense to show wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons when doing or failing to do something that is ones duty.

SECTION WORDING

219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

EXPLANATION

Section 219(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code outlines criminal negligence, which refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care or protection for the lives or safety of others. There are two ways in which an individual can commit criminal negligence: by doing something that endangers the lives of others, or by failing to perform a duty that is required to keep others safe. The first part of Section 219(1) addresses those who engage in reckless behavior that endangers others. For instance, if an individual is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that individual is engaging in activity that poses a danger to other drivers and pedestrians. Similarly, if someone recklessly handles a firearm or explosives, they are putting the lives of others at risk. The second part of Section 219(1) addresses those who have a specific duty to protect others but fail to do so. For example, if someone is responsible for properly securing a piece of heavy machinery, and they neglect to do so, and that machinery causes injury or death to someone else, they may be charged with criminal negligence. Additionally, the wanton or reckless disregard for human life or safety, which is a requirement for an offense under Section 219(1), means that the behavior must be particularly severe or flagrant. A person who engages in minor negligence, such as a momentary mistake that results in a minor injury, would not be criminally liable under this section. In conclusion, Section 219(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets a standard of reasonable care for individuals to ensure the safety of others. If someone acts recklessly or fails to fulfill a specific duty that results in harm to others, they could be charged with criminal negligence.

COMMENTARY

Section 219(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out a charge of criminal negligence. This provision makes it an offence to engage in conduct or fail to engage in conduct that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. The provision is broad in scope and seeks to hold individuals accountable for their actions or inactions that put others in harm's way. The concept of criminal negligence is based on the principle that individuals have a duty of care towards others, and they can be held responsible for failing to meet that duty. This principle applies in a wide range of situations, including operating a motor vehicle, providing medical treatment, or working in a dangerous industry. The first part of the provision, (a), applies to the positive action of doing something that creates a risk to others. This may include reckless driving, or failing to take proper safety precautions when engaging in a dangerous activity. The second part of the provision, (b), applies to instances where an individual fails to do something that they have a legal duty to do, and this failure creates a risk to others. This may include a doctor failing to provide proper medical treatment or a building owner failing to maintain their property. The key element of criminal negligence is the wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. This means that an individual must have been aware of the risks associated with their conduct and still chose to behave in a way that put others at risk. This high level of recklessness is necessary to distinguish criminal negligence from ordinary negligence, which is a civil tort. The penalty for criminal negligence is severe, with potential imprisonment for up to life. This reflects the seriousness of the offence and the potential harm that can be caused by reckless behaviour. Section 219(1) plays an important role in protecting the public from harm caused by individuals who fail to meet their duty of care. It provides a clear legal framework for holding individuals accountable for their actions or inactions and serves as a deterrent against reckless behaviour. However, there is also a need to ensure that the provision is applied appropriately. As with any criminal offence, an accused is innocent until proven guilty, and the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused met the high threshold for criminal negligence. In conclusion, section 219(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that serves to hold individuals accountable for their reckless conduct or inaction that leads to harm. It provides a legal framework for protecting the public from harm caused by individuals who fail to meet their duty of care and serves as a deterrent against reckless behaviour. However, it must be applied appropriately to ensure that individuals are not wrongly accused or punished.

STRATEGY

Section 219(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that criminalizes reckless or wanton disregard for the lives or safety of other people. The section applies to both acts of commission and omission, and it is often employed in cases of criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm. When dealing with section 219(1), prosecutors and defense counsel must consider several strategic considerations and employ effective strategies to bolster their case. This essay discusses some of the key strategic considerations and strategies that attorneys could use when dealing with this provision. One of the first strategic considerations when dealing with section 219(1) is determining whether the accused had a duty to act. Section 219(1)(b) states that criminal negligence could arise from the "omission to do anything that it is his duty to do." Therefore, determining whether the accused had a legal duty to act is critical in establishing criminal negligence. For instance, if a police officer fails to intervene in a life-threatening situation, or a parent neglects their child, the court may find that the accused breached their duty of care, leading to criminal negligence. Another key strategic consideration is establishing the accused's state of mind at the time of the offense. Criminal negligence requires proof of a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. Thus, the prosecution must show that the accused acted with an obvious and extreme level of disregard for the victim's safety. In contrast, the defense may argue that the accused acted reasonably given the circumstances or lacked the requisite intent to cause harm. A third strategic consideration is identifying the relevant standard of care. Criminal negligence involves a breach of a duty of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in similar circumstances. Therefore, identifying the standard of care that the accused should have met is critical in establishing criminal negligence. For example, in a medical malpractice case, the court will determine the standard of care that a reasonable medical practitioner would have exercised in similar circumstances and compare it with the accused's conduct. After identifying these strategic considerations, several strategies can be employed to bolster the case. First, the prosecution may rely on expert witnesses to establish the standard of care and explain the accused's wanton or reckless disregard for safety. Expert testimony can provide the court with critical insights into the accused's state of mind and the appropriate standard of care that should have been met. Second, the defense may argue that the accused's conduct was not the cause of the victim's injuries or death. The defense may try to establish that intervening factors, such as the victim's pre-existing condition, contributed to the harm. This strategy can weaken the prosecution's case by casting doubt on the causal link between the accused's actions and the victim's injuries. Third, the defense may use the defense of mistake of fact to argue that the accused lacked the requisite intent to cause harm. For example, the accused may argue that they mistakenly believed that the victim was not in danger, or that they acted reasonably given the circumstances. In conclusion, section 219(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision that criminalizes reckless or wanton disregard for the lives or safety of other people. When dealing with this provision, attorneys must consider several strategic considerations, including determining the accused's duty to act, establishing their state of mind, and identifying the relevant standard of care. Employing effective strategies such as relying on expert witnesses, arguing intervening factors, or using the defense of mistake of fact can bolster the case for either party.