The Supreme Court confirms a man’s acquittals and the Court of Appeal’s order for a new trial for another man in cases involving automatism

David Sullivan and Thomas Chan, both from Ontario, committed violent crimes while heavily intoxicated from substances they had voluntarily taken. Although these incidents are unrelated, both men claim that the substances put them in a state of "automatism," where they assert to have lost complete control of themselves due to intoxication or impairment.

Mr. Sullivan became inebriated after overdosing on prescription medicine and stabbed his mother with a knife, causing serious injuries. He faced charges of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and several other offenses.

Mr. Chan consumed "magic mushrooms" containing psilocybin and became intoxicated, resulting in an assault on his father with a knife, leading to his father's death and critically injuring his father's partner. Mr. Chan was charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault during his trial. He claimed that, in addition to automatism, an underlying brain injury was responsible for his criminal acts.

Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code does not permit the use of automatism as a defense for offenses involving assault or interference with another person's bodily integrity. In their respective trials, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Chan argued that section 33.1 violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Section 7 ensures the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, while section 11(d) presumes everyone innocent until proven guilty.

In Mr. Sullivan's case, the trial judge recognized that he was acting involuntarily but ruled that section 33.1 prevented him from using automatism as a defense, resulting in a guilty verdict. In Mr. Chan's case, a different trial judge ruled that he was not bound by previous judgments declaring section 33.1 unconstitutional. The judge found that Mr. Chan's brain injury was not the cause of his actions and pronounced him guilty.

Both individuals appealed their cases to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which heard them concurrently. Mr. Sullivan was acquitted, but Mr. Chan's case was ordered for a new trial as there was no specific finding of fact about automatism in his case. The Crown appealed both decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

In R. v. Brown, a case heard concurrently with these appeals, the Supreme Court declared section 33.1 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, stated that the Court's decision in R. v. Brown applied to this case as well. The Court found that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter in a way that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society, rendering it unconstitutional. As a result, Mr. Sullivan was acquitted since he demonstrated he was in a state of automatism due to intoxication, and the trial judge found him to be acting involuntarily. Mr. Chan can now use the automatism defense in his upcoming trial, as per Justice Kasirer's ruling.

The Supreme Court also addressed the effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality by one trial court on another within the same province. According to the Court, a decision is binding on other trial courts unless the facts are significantly different or the court had no practical means of knowing about the decision.