LEAF logo
DONATE
MENU
LEAF logo

Contact

DONATE
Informations en français
  • About
    • Our Story
    • Mission & Vision
    • Staff
    • Board
    • Law Program Committee
    • FAQs
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Student Positions
  • Cases and Law Reform
    • Our Work
    • Issue Areas
      • Reproductive Justice
      • Indigenous Rights and Law
      • Identity-Based Oppression
      • Hate Speech and Online Hate
      • Sexual Assault and Consent Law
      • Gender-Based Violence
      • Access to Justice
      • Workplace Rights
      • Socio-Economic Rights
      • Family Law
    • Search Cases & Submissions
    • Current Work
      • Basic Income Project
      • LEAF’s Feminist Strategic Litigation Project
      • LEAF’s Technology-Facilitated Violence (TFV) Project
      • National Abortion Access Framework
    • Past Projects
    • Legal Representation Referrals
  • Education
    • Overview
    • Workshops, trainings & webinars
    • Factsheets & infographics
  • News & Events
    • Search News & Events
    • Events
  • Publications
    • Search Publications
    • Working Papers
    • Reports
    • Annual Reports
  • Regional Branches
    • Overview
    • LEAF Edmonton
    • LEAF Halifax
    • LEAF Hamilton
    • LEAF Kingston
    • LEAF Ottawa
    • LEAF Québec
    • LEAF Thunder Bay
    • LEAF Toronto
    • LEAF Windsor
  • Get Involved
    • Ways to Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Join a Branch
    • Volunteer
    • Become a LEAF Pro Bono Lawyer
    • Partner with LEAF
Menu
  • About
    • Our Story
    • Mission & Vision
    • Staff
    • Board
    • Law Program Committee
    • FAQs
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Student Positions
  • Cases and Law Reform
    • Our Work
    • Issue Areas
      • Reproductive Justice
      • Indigenous Rights and Law
      • Identity-Based Oppression
      • Hate Speech and Online Hate
      • Sexual Assault and Consent Law
      • Gender-Based Violence
      • Access to Justice
      • Workplace Rights
      • Socio-Economic Rights
      • Family Law
    • Search Cases & Submissions
    • Current Work
      • Basic Income Project
      • LEAF’s Feminist Strategic Litigation Project
      • LEAF’s Technology-Facilitated Violence (TFV) Project
      • National Abortion Access Framework
    • Past Projects
    • Legal Representation Referrals
  • Education
    • Overview
    • Workshops, trainings & webinars
    • Factsheets & infographics
  • News & Events
    • Search News & Events
    • Events
  • Publications
    • Search Publications
    • Working Papers
    • Reports
    • Annual Reports
  • Regional Branches
    • Overview
    • LEAF Edmonton
    • LEAF Halifax
    • LEAF Hamilton
    • LEAF Kingston
    • LEAF Ottawa
    • LEAF Québec
    • LEAF Thunder Bay
    • LEAF Toronto
    • LEAF Windsor
  • Get Involved
    • Ways to Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Join a Branch
    • Volunteer
    • Become a LEAF Pro Bono Lawyer
    • Partner with LEAF
Home / Cases and Law Reform / Search Cases & Submissions

Case Summary

R. v. Sullivan; R. v. Chan (2020)

This case concerned the ability to use self-induced extreme intoxication as a defence to assault and sexual assault offences.  

LEAF intervened before the Ontario Court of Appeal, and is seeking leave to intervene before the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Facts 

Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Chan each committed violent physical assaults after they had voluntarily consumed drugs. They argued that they did not have the intent to commit the assaults, as a result of their intoxication. A provision of the Criminal Code, however, states that accused persons cannot use self-induced extreme intoxication as a defence to offences including assault, sexual assault, and manslaughter.  

At trial, Mr. Chan argued that the provision violated the Charter, because it meant they would be penalized for acts they did not intend to do. The trial judge found that the provision violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, but was saved under s. 1. Mr. Sullivan did not challenge the constitutionality of the provision at his trial. Both men appealed their convictions to the Ontario Court of Appeal.  

Arguments 

LEAF argued that the constitutionality of the provision needed to be assessed in the context of women’s s. 15 equality rights. In enacting this provision, Parliament was focused on protecting the rights of women and children, recognizing that violence disproportionately impacts them. The assessment of whether the provision violated s. 7 of the Charter needed to consider and balance all of the Charter rights engaged by the provision, particularly the equality and security rights of women and children.   

Outcome 

The Ontario Court of Appeal found that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code breaches the Charter rights of accused people and is, therefore, no longer in effect in Ontario. This means the defence is now available in Ontario under certain circumstances, which should be very rare. 

The Attorney General of Ontario has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. LEAF will be seeking leave to intervene in that appeal, and we will post updates as the case unfolds.

LEAF is grateful to Megan Stephens and Lara Kinkartz, counsel in this case.

Download the factum here.

Read the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision here.  

LEAF’s interventions are all guided, informed and supported by a case committee composed of academics and practitioners with expertise in the relevant issues. The case committee members for the intervention at the Ontario Court of Appeal were Karen Bellehumeur, Janine Benedet, Isabel Grant, Elizabeth Sheehy, and Adriel Weaver. LEAF gratefully acknowledges their contributions to the arguments in this factum. 

The case committee members for our intervention at the Supreme Court of Canada, should we receive leave to intervene, are: Karen Bellehumeur (Bellehumeur Law); Rosemary Cairns Way (University of Ottawa); Frances Chapman (Lakehead University); Alanna Courtright (St. Joseph Healthcare Hamilton); Daphne Gilbert (University of Ottawa); Farrah Khan (Ryerson University); and Marie Manikis (McGill University).

Our records are imperfect, but we are doing our best to update them – if you were involved with LEAF on this case but your name is not reflected here, please email us at info[email protected].   

R. c. Sullivan; R. c. Chan

Cette affaire concernait la capacité d’utiliser l’intoxication extrême auto-provoquée comme moyen de défense contre des infractions de voies de fait et d’agression sexuelle.

Le FAEJ est intervenue devant la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario.

Faits

M. Sullivan et M. Chan ont chacun commis de violentes agressions physiques après avoir volontairement consommé de la drogue. Ils ont fait valoir qu’ils n’avaient pas l’intention de commettre les agressions en raison de leur intoxication. Cependant, une disposition du Code criminel stipule que les accusés ne peuvent pas invoquer l’intoxication extrême volontaire comme moyen de défense contre des infractions telles que les voies de fait, les agressions sexuelles et l’homicide involontaire coupable.

Au procès, M. Chan a soutenu que la disposition violait la Charte, car cela signifiait qu’ils seraient pénalisés pour des actes qu’ils n’avaient pas l’intention de commettre. Le juge du procès a conclu que la disposition violait les articles 7 et 11(d) de la Chartre, mais était sauvé en vertu de l’art. 1. M. Sullivan n’a pas contesté la constitutionnalité de la disposition lors de son procès. Les deux hommes ont interjeté appel de leur condamnation devant la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario.

Argumentation

Le FAEJ a fait valoir que la constitutionnalité de la disposition devait être évaluée dans le contexte des droits à l’égalité des femmes en vertu de l’art. 15. En promulguant cette disposition, le Parlement s’est concentré sur la protection des droits des femmes et des enfants, reconnaissant que la violence les touche de manière disproportionnée. L’évaluation questionnant si  cette disposition violait l’art. 7 de la Charte devait prendre en compte et de trouver un équilibre de tous les droits de la Charte visés par la disposition, en particulier les droits à l’égalité et à la sécurité des femmes et des enfants.

Résultats

La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a conclu que l’article 33.1 du Code criminel viole les droits garantis par la Charte aux accusés et n’est donc plus en vigueur en Ontario. Cela signifie que la défense est maintenant disponible en Ontario dans certaines circonstances, ce qui devrait être très rare.

Le FAEJ remercie Megan Stephens et Lara Kinkartz, avocates dans cette affaire.

Les interventions du FAEJ sont toutes guidées, éclairées et soutenues par un comité de cas composé d’universitaires et de praticiens ayant une expertise dans les questions pertinentes. Les membres du comité de cas pour cette intervention étaient Karen Bellehumeur, Janine Benedet, Isabel Grant, Elizabeth Sheehy et Adriel Weaver. Le FAEJ remercie chaleureusement leurs contributions à l’argumentation dans ce mémoire.

Téléchargez le mémoire du FAEJ ici.

Lisez la décision de la Cour de l’Ontario ici.

Nos dossiers sont imparfaits, mais nous faisons de notre mieux pour les mettre à jour – si vous étiez impliqué avec le FAEJ dans cette affaire mais que votre nom n’apparaît pas ici, veuillez nous envoyer un courriel à [email protected].  

Case Documents

September 27, 2019
Supreme Court of Canada Factum

Case News

Loading...

Jun 04, 2020

LEAF reflects on the recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Sullivan and R. v. Chan with a disappointing outcome for women and children

Oct 07, 2019

LEAF Intervenes in the Appeal of R v Sullivan and R v Chan
Help us promote gender equality
Donate to support equality

Search Cases & Submissions

  • Issue Area

  • Type

  • By Date

  • Keyword

  • Reset search
Help us promote gender equality
Donate to support equality

Stay up to date on feminist law and LEAF’s work to advance gender equality

Related Cases

Loading...

R. v. Slatter (2020)

This case concerned access to justice for women labelled with intellectual disabilities.

R. v. Sullivan; R. v. Chan (2020)

This case concerned the ability to use self-induced extreme intoxication as a defence to assault.
More Cases

Related Cases

Loading...

R. v. Slatter (2020)

This case concerned access to justice for women labelled with intellectual disabilities.

R. v. Boyle (2019)

This case concerned the rights of complainants in sexual assault trials when being cross-examined.
More Cases

Related Issue Area

Loading...

Sexual Assault and Consent Law

Case Summary

R. v. Sullivan; R. v. Chan (2020)

Sidebar Placeholder

LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb_rev
Donate to support equality

National Office
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1420
Toronto, ON M5G 1Z8
[email protected]
Phone: 416.595.7170
Toll-free: 1.888.824.5323
Facsimile: 416.595.7191

Stay up to date on feminist law and LEAF’s work to advance gender equality

LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb_rev

National Office
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1420
Toronto, ON M5G 1Z8
[email protected]
Phone: 416.595.7170
Toll-free: 1.888.824.5323
Facsimile: 416.595.7191

Charitable Registration Number: 10821 9916 RR0001

Facebook-f
Twitter
Instagram

Stay up to date on feminist law and LEAF’s work to advance gender equality

Donate to support equality

© 2020 Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF). All rights reserved. | Legal & Privacy | Accessibility | Website by Affinity Bridge

MENU

Menu
  • About
    • Our Story
    • Mission & Vision
    • Staff
    • Board
    • Law Program Committee
    • FAQs
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Student Positions
  • Cases and Law Reform
    • Our Work
    • Issue Areas
      • Reproductive Justice
      • Indigenous Rights and Law
      • Identity-Based Oppression
      • Hate Speech and Online Hate
      • Sexual Assault and Consent Law
      • Gender-Based Violence
      • Access to Justice
      • Workplace Rights
      • Socio-Economic Rights
      • Family Law
    • Search Cases & Submissions
    • Current Work
      • Basic Income Project
      • LEAF’s Feminist Strategic Litigation Project
      • LEAF’s Technology-Facilitated Violence (TFV) Project
      • National Abortion Access Framework
    • Past Projects
    • Legal Representation Referrals
  • Education
    • Overview
    • Workshops, trainings & webinars
    • Factsheets & infographics
  • News & Events
    • Search News & Events
    • Events
  • Publications
    • Search Publications
    • Working Papers
    • Reports
    • Annual Reports
  • Regional Branches
    • Overview
    • LEAF Edmonton
    • LEAF Halifax
    • LEAF Hamilton
    • LEAF Kingston
    • LEAF Ottawa
    • LEAF Québec
    • LEAF Thunder Bay
    • LEAF Toronto
    • LEAF Windsor
  • Get Involved
    • Ways to Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Join a Branch
    • Volunteer
    • Become a LEAF Pro Bono Lawyer
    • Partner with LEAF