Justice committee  The science on this issue is constantly evolving. It’s a complicated issue. The level of intoxication depends specifically on the nature of the ingested substance, which may have a different effect on each person. The individual’s mental state when consuming an intoxicating substance can also have an effect.

Justice committee  Unfortunately, I didn't quite understand your question, Mr. Fortin. Could you ask it again, please?

Justice committee  I think I understand your question. The Supreme Court rendered its decision in R. v Brown just a few months ago. The Court believed that there might be circumstances in which a person would be able to establish that they were in a state of self‑induced extreme intoxication akin to automatism, but that they were not able to foresee that they might fall into that state.

Justice committee  Thank you for your question. According to the Supreme Court, the former version of section 33.1 presumed negligence on the part of the accused at the time of consumption, without the Crown having to prove it. The former version therefore allowed an individual to be found guilty if they had been in a state of intoxication similar to automatism, but could not have foreseen that it would happen, and they committed an act of violence against another person while intoxicated.

Justice committee  Everything depends on the facts, the evidence and the quality of the evidence. It is therefore difficult to presume a verdict or the outcome of a trial, because if a small part of the evidence changes, the verdict could change. It really is a calculation that has to be done at each trial based on the evidence presented and its quality.

Justice committee  I’m talking about the current act, after the new section 33.1 came into force. It is true that it is somewhat contradictory, because the accused must prove that they were in a state of automatism and also that the risk of falling into such a state was not foreseeable. Based on our understanding of the Brown ruling, and after the new section 33.1 came into force, the only circumstances that could lead to a finding of not guilty, meaning that the defence was used successfully and there was no proof of negligence, are those in which it was demonstrated that a reasonable person could not have foreseen what would happen in a state where they were not aware of what they were doing or was not in control of their actions.