L'évaluation de la défense d'intoxication avancée exige une analyse contextuelle globale du comportement, de la mémoire et des preuves pour déterminer si l'accusé possédait l'intention spécifique de tuer

R v Matchatis, 2020 ABCA 435

Lien vers la décision

[26]           Determining whether an accused’s level of intoxication rises to the level of impairing an accused’s foresight of the consequences of their acts is a highly factual and contextual exercise. While expert evidence is not a prerequisite to a defence of advanced intoxication as it is with intoxication akin to automatism, it is nonetheless common: R v Arjun, 2015 BCCA 273 at para 39, leave to appeal ref’d [2015] SCCA No 324. Expert evidence as to the accused’s blood alcohol level when the crime was committed, and the impact the accused’s blood alcohol level would have on their cognition, can provide important context in which to assess the accused’s actions. For her part, Dr. Massey provided only an assumption based on the evidence of Phyllis and Matchatis, that “If you did a blood alcohol reading on him, I’m pretty sure he’d be really high.”

[27]           Other relevant factors include the mannerisms of the accused (slurring, staggering, glossy eyes); ability to recall details of the day and the events in question; and ability to act responsively or to carry out purposeful actions before the commission of the offence. Further, an accused’s post-offence conduct may be considered to discredit a defence, like advanced intoxication, relating to whether an accused formed the requisite intent: R v Jaw, 2009 SCC 42, [2009] 3 SCR 26 at para 40.

[28]           Absent expert evidence on this issue, the trial judge was left with generic evidence as to Matchatis’ level of impairment. Indisputably, the evidence suggests Matchatis had been drinking all day and was intoxicated. The trial judge recounted that Tyler placed his father’s intoxication that evening at 9 on a scale from 1 to 10, and Phyllis’ evidence that he was “just about blacked out drunk” but generally can function even when drunk and it takes a lot of alcohol for him to pass out. Phyllis said Matchatis was a seasoned drinker who, after a period of abstinence, had been drinking regularly for over a year; he could handle his liquor, particularly beer.

[32]           A trial judge must weigh and consider all of the evidence of intoxication in a contextual manner to determine whether the accused’s intoxication crossed the line from mere loss of inhibition, impaired judgment and increased bravado to the point where they are left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the intoxication was severe enough that its effect might have impaired the accused’s foresight of the consequences of their actions. In our view, the trial judge did just that. Matchatis’ actions both before and after the shooting, together with his detailed recall of the events, evinced a sense of awareness. We defer to his ultimate finding that the nature of this homicide was consistent with an intention to kill the deceased.

La défense d'intoxication extrême pour nier l'intention de meurtre requiert de prouver l'incapacité de prévoir les conséquences de ses actes, laquelle s'évalue selon plusieurs facteurs factuels et comportementaux clés

R. v. Rogers, 2024 NSCA 100

Lien vers la décision

[56]         An accused may raise a reasonable doubt about their intent for murder through evidence of advanced intoxication. Where death is the consequence of the accused’s acts, the accused would have to establish a particularly advanced degree of intoxication to successfully avail himself of this defence. The inquiry is whether the accused’s ability to foresee the consequences of his actions was affected by intoxication.[22]

[57]         Factors that may be relevant in assessing advanced intoxication include:

1.                 The amount and type of intoxicant consumed;

2.                 Evidence of the accused’s ability to communicate, process information, and/or problem-solve;

3.                 Evidence of the accused’s fine and gross motor coordination skills and ability to perform divided-attention tasks;

4.                 Observations of the accused’s demeanour at or around the time of the offence;

5.                 Witnesses’ lay opinions of the accused’s level of intoxication;

6.                 Evidence of goal-oriented or rational behaviour by the accused;

7.                 Expert evidence linking the accused’s intoxication to the accused’s ability to foresee the consequences of his actions.[23]