Trial on charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm under s. 264.1(1)(a) CC. Issue of whether defence of intoxication was available to the accused.

Held: Conviction.

Desjarlais, 2016 ABPC 182, followed. In that case, Allen PCJ applied the analysis in Tatton, 2015 SCC 33 regarding general versus specific intent classification and concluded that s. 264.1 is a general intent offence: β€œThe mental element of 264.1 is that the accused intended that the words uttered or conveyed be taken seriously … The mental element requires minimal mental acuity. The mental element does not require a heightened mental element such as an ulterior motive, actual knowledge of any consequences, or intent to bring about those consequences.” Social policy considerations also support classification as a general intent offence. Thus, voluntary intoxication falling short of automatism is not a defence.

R. Fedorchuk – Defence Counsel