Murray Segal

The respondent, a chronic alcoholic, set fire to the house where he lived with his companion and her two children.

The children died.

He was convicted of murder.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in his charge on s. 212(c) of the Criminal Code by failing to relate the defence of drunkenness to the accused's knowledge of the surrounding circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that while the test under s. 212(c) is objective, it must be applied based on the knowledge the accused actually had of the surrounding circumstances, making drunkenness a relevant factor.

The appellant was convicted of driving while disqualified under s. 238(3) of the Criminal Code after his driver's licence was suspended by provincial administrative action.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 238(3) was ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, as it attached criminal consequences to provincial licence suspensions that could be imposed for reasons entirely unrelated to driving ability or highway safety, thereby exceeding the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the B.N.A. Act.