R v Creighton Twenty Years Later: Harm versus Death Revisited

13 Pages Posted: 3 Nov 2013 Last revised: 25 Mar 2014

See all articles by Amar Khoday

Amar Khoday

University of Manitoba - Faculty of Law

Date Written: October 28, 2013


This article revisits the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R v Creighton which holds that the requisite mens rea or fault standard for unlawful act manslaughter is objective foresight of bodily harm than is neither trivial nor transient. The article contends, drawing from the dissenting opinion, that the more appropriate fault standard was objective foresight of death. A person convicted of unlawful act manslaughter is eligible to serve a term of life imprisonment. Objective foreseeability of death is the more appropriate standard given that there is a substantial social stigma attached to unlawful act manslaughter, a form of culpable homicide. The current standard is problematic given the breadth of what constitutes “bodily harm” can include all but the most trivial of injuries. Lastly, the article addresses the potential impact of changing the mens rea standard to objective foreseeability of death.

Keywords: Unlawful Act Manslaughter, Homicide, Mens Rea, Fault Standard, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law

JEL Classification: K14

Suggested Citation

Khoday, Amar, R v Creighton Twenty Years Later: Harm versus Death Revisited (October 28, 2013). (2013) 37 Manitoba Law Journal 167, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2346470

Amar Khoday (Contact Author)

University of Manitoba - Faculty of Law ( email )

224 Dysart Rd.
University of Manitoba Faculty of Law
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics