top of page
Search

What Is Mens Rea? Understanding the “Guilty Mind” in Canadian Criminal Law

  • Writer: Sara Santos-Vigneault
    Sara Santos-Vigneault
  • Jun 29, 2025
  • 4 min read
A hand supports a glowing brain sketch on a gray background, symbolizing intelligence and creativity. White lines and dots connect the brain.


Mens rea in Canadian criminal law refers to one of the two essential elements that must be proven before a person can be found guilty of most offences: the actus reus (the physical act or omission) and the mens rea (the mental element or guilty mind). While the actus reus confirms that an unlawful act took place, it is the mens rea that determines whether the accused possessed the state of mind necessary for criminal responsibility. This article explores what mens rea means, how it is applied in Canadian courts, and why it is fundamental to a fair and just legal system.



What Does "Mens Rea" Mean?

The term mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind." It refers to the mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed. In plain terms, mens rea asks the question: "Did the person intend to break the law or act in a way they knew was wrong or risky?"

Without proving the required mens rea, most criminal charges will not lead to a conviction—even if the accused physically committed the act.



Why Is Mens Rea Important?

Mens rea plays a central role in ensuring fairness and accountability in criminal proceedings.


Its purpose is to:

  • Differentiate between intentional and accidental acts.

  • Prevent punishment of individuals who lacked awareness or intent.

  • Respect constitutional principles, particularly Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


According to Canadian legal tradition and jurisprudence, imposing serious criminal penalties (such as life imprisonment) without establishing mens rea can amount to a violation of constitutional rights.



Types of Mens Rea in Canadian Law

Different offences require different levels or types of mens rea. Canadian courts generally recognize the following categories:


1. Intent (Purposeful Conduct)

Intent means the accused deliberately engaged in conduct with a specific purpose or goal. For example, someone who plans and executes a robbery typically has the requisite intent.


2. Knowledge

Knowledge exists when the accused is aware of certain facts that make their conduct criminal. For example, knowingly possessing a controlled substance or stolen property.


3. Recklessness

Recklessness means the person knew there was a risk of harm or wrongdoing and proceeded anyway. This form of mens rea often applies in cases involving dangerous driving or criminal negligence.


4. Wilful Blindness

Wilful blindness occurs when a person suspects that something is unlawful but intentionally avoids confirming those suspicions. Canadian courts treat this as equivalent to actual knowledge.


5. Objective Mens Rea

In some regulatory or driving offences, courts apply an objective standard: What would a reasonable person in the same situation have known or foreseen? This is used less often in serious criminal matters.



Landmark Case: R. v. Martineau (1990)

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633, is a pivotal decision that clarified the constitutional limits of mens rea requirements for murder charges in Canada.

Case Summary

Roderick Martineau, then 15 years old, participated in what he believed was a non-violent break and enter. His co-accused, however, brought a gun and fatally shot two people inside the home. Martineau was charged with second-degree murder under then-section 213(a) of the Criminal Code, which allowed for a murder conviction even if the accused did not intend or foresee a death.


Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 213(a), ruling that a person cannot be convicted of murder without proof of subjective foresight of death. The Court held that such a conviction would violate Section 7 of the Charter, as it would allow for the most severe criminal penalty without the appropriate mental element.





Other Notable Canadian Cases Involving Mens Rea

R. v. Beaver, [1957] S.C.R. 531

The accused was found with drugs but claimed not to know what the substance was. The Court ruled that knowledge of the substance's nature was required for a conviction.


R. v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867

The Court applied an objective test to a dangerous driving case, focusing on what a reasonable person would have foreseen rather than the driver's actual mindset.


R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944

The Court upheld criminal liability for unlawful acts causing bodily harm, even without proof of subjective intent, as long as the act was objectively dangerous.



Mens Rea and the Criminal Code

The Criminal Code of Canada contains various provisions that reflect mens rea requirements:

These provisions are interpreted by courts in light of the Charter, relevant case law, and evolving legal standards.



Conclusion

Mens rea is a cornerstone of Canadian criminal justice. It protects individuals from being convicted and punished for acts they did not intentionally or knowingly commit. The requirement for a guilty mind ensures that criminal law remains grounded in fairness, accountability, and constitutional principles.

Cases like R. v. Martineau show that the courts will not allow the most serious criminal punishments without clear evidence of culpable intent. As Canadian law continues to evolve, mens rea remains central to the integrity of the justice system.




Bibliography and Sources

Comments

bottom of page