@ Sean: I had this argument with Cueball about the definition of manslaughter in Thread II. The problem is that Cueball is fixated on the defence of provocation in s.232 of the Code as though it DEFINES the offence of manlaughter. That is, why, for example, he keeps talking about "reduced murder" as though that is all that manslaughter is. He also says somewhere up there that criminal negligence is "reserved for acts of omission." It isn't as s.219 of the Code makes clear.
@Unionist: I realize that people use the term in difference senses, but technically mens rea simply is one version of the "fault" portion of a criminal offence, as opposed to the "act portion". It is easier and less misleading to think in terms of "fault" rather than "mens rea". The Crown must prove "fault" for any offence for which the accused can go to jail, BUT that fault can be established through objective rather than subjective means. "Mens rea" means "subjective fault". Criminal negligence,involves OBJECTIVELY determined fault, displayed by the act tself, without having to prove anything regarding the accused's state of mind, because a criminally negligent act by its definition displays "wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of others."
The case you cited is from 1967. The leading case on crimninal negligence is Creighton from 1993. I don't have time go over it, sorry, but it specifically REJECTS either "advertence" or "subjective foresight of consequences" being required for proof of guilt.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1993/1993rcs3-3/1993rcs3-3.html
As I said before, there are (at least) two different ways to commit manslaughter (one of them being through criminal negligence) because things are added to the Code over time (like criminal negligence in 1955) and Parliament rarely bothers to amend previous sections to reflect that. It is an additive process.
Gah. I said I was out of this before - M.Spector is around I see, but sensibly staying out of this thread I guess. Too crazy-making.
