Trial on charges of obstruction and breaking and entering a dwellinghouse with intent to commit an indictable offence. Issue of whether intoxication rebutted the presumption of intent in s. 348(2)(b) CC, and if so, whether the accused should be convicted of mischief.

Held: Acquitted of break & enter; convicted of mischief, obstruction.

Court found that the accused was “heavily intoxicated”: evidence showed various indicia of alcohol consumption, bizarre behaviour and general confusion, including a statement by the accused that “I live here.” Considering the degrees of intoxication discussed in Daley, 2007 SCC 53, and Desjarlais, 2016 ABPC 182, the Court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding the requisite specific intent for the break and enter charge. However, the elements of mischief in relation to both damaging property and interfering with use and enjoyment of property were made out.

L. Allen – Defence Counsel