Face à une preuve circonstancielle, cette dernière doit être suffisante pour permettre d'inférer la mens rea hors de tout doute raisonnable des faits prouvés

R. v. Holmes, 2008 ONCA 604

Lien vers la décision

[2]               Whether the appellant had the requisite mens rea was in this case primarily a question of fact. Since there was no evidence from the appellant, whether or not he had the requisite mens rea depended on the inferences to be drawn from the proven facts. The trial judge rejected the submission that the use of a hat and sunglasses was a disguise and he was entitled to do so on this record. Moreover, the appellant drove slowly past the gym twice in his distinctive car and then ran on to the street as the complainant’s vehicle was leaving. Given those facts it was open to the trial judge to find, as he did, that the appellant was reckless as to whether the complainant was harassed.