The appellant appealed a first degree murder conviction arising from the killing of a child, where the central trial issue was his mental state and potential exemption from criminal responsibility.
The Court of Appeal held that statements made by the appellant to a psychiatrist during a court-ordered psychiatric assessment for fitness and criminal responsibility were protected under s. 672.21 of the Criminal Code and were inadmissible to prove actus reus or mens rea.
The court found the appellant's consent was limited to assessment for fitness and criminal responsibility and did not authorize substantive use of the statements to prove planning and deliberation.
Because the psychiatrist's evidence was central to the Crown's case on first degree murder, the curative proviso could not be applied.
The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
