L. Joleen Hiland

Thomas Chan was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault after fatally stabbing his father and gravely injuring his father's partner during a drug-induced psychotic episode from magic mushrooms.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, balancing the high gravity of the offences with the offender's diminished moral blameworthiness due to unforeseeable psychosis and his exemplary character.

The judge imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, reduced by 1.5 years for pre-trial custody (including enhanced credit for solitary confinement and restrictive bail conditions), resulting in a net sentence of 3.5 years.

Thomas Chan, while in a drug-induced psychotic state after consuming magic mushrooms, fatally stabbed his father and gravely wounded his father's partner.

He was charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault, with the Crown seeking convictions for manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The defence argued for a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, asserting that a pre-existing mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) contributed to the psychosis, making him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The court applied a holistic approach, considering internal cause, continuing danger, and policy factors, and concluded that the psychosis was primarily caused by self-induced intoxication, not the MTBI as a "disease of the mind" for the purposes of s. 16.

Consequently, Chan was found guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The accused, charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault after stabbing his father and his father's partner while hallucinating on magic mushrooms, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code.

Section 33.1 precludes the defence of self-induced intoxication for general intent offences involving violence.

The court found that while s. 33.1 violates the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter by substituting the intent to become intoxicated for the fault and voluntariness elements of the offences, the provision is saved under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court held that protecting victims, particularly women and children, from intoxicated violence and ensuring offender accountability are pressing and substantial objectives that justify the Charter infringements.