Intent
Intent is the mental state — the mens rea — that the Crown must prove for most criminal offences in Canada. Where the Crown cannot prove the required intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted, even where the prohibited act clearly occurred. The required intent varies by offence: some require specific intent (a particular purpose or knowledge), while others require only general intent (the intent to perform the prohibited act).
Mass Tsang's criminal lawyers approach intent as a primary line of attack on Crown cases where the mental element is contested. For more, see our blog post on the basic elements of Canadian criminal law.
Specific vs. general intent
Specific-intent offences require proof that the accused had a particular further purpose beyond the basic act. Examples include: murder (intent to kill or to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death); theft (intent to deprive permanently); fraud (intent to defraud); robbery (intent to steal); and break and enter (intent to commit an indictable offence inside). General-intent offences require only the intent to perform the prohibited act. Examples include: assault (intent to apply force); sexual assault (intent to engage in the sexual conduct); and manslaughter (intent to perform the act causing death, without specific intent to kill).
Why the distinction matters
The specific-vs-general intent distinction matters for several defences. Self-induced intoxication, for example, can negate specific intent (reducing murder to manslaughter, for instance) but generally cannot negate general intent. Honest mistake of fact also operates differently between the two categories. The categorization of an offence is sometimes contested and case-determinative.
Subjective vs. objective intent
Most criminal-Code offences require subjective intent — the accused must actually have the required mental state, not just be someone who reasonably should have. A few offences (criminal negligence, dangerous driving) use objective mens rea — measured against a reasonable person's conduct. The line between subjective and objective is constitutionally significant; the Supreme Court has held that some offences (notably murder) require subjective intent as a matter of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Charter.
Inferring intent
Courts infer intent from conduct, surrounding circumstances, statements by the accused, and the natural consequences of the act. A person who fires a gun at someone's chest will be inferred to have intended either to kill or to cause serious bodily harm — the inference of intent flows naturally from the act. Where intent is genuinely in issue, the defence will challenge each piece of the inferential chain.
Strategic role
Intent is one of the most common battlegrounds in criminal trials. Many cases turn on whether the accused had the required mental state, not on whether the act occurred. Where the inference of intent is shaky — ambiguous statements, alternative explanations for conduct, evidence of mistake — there is room for a reasonable doubt that can lead to acquittal.
Related glossary terms
