INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section states that if someone causes bodily injury that results in death, even if it only accelerates the persons death from another cause, they are still responsible for causing the persons death.
SECTION WORDING
226 Where a person causes to a human being a bodily injury that results in death, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that the effect of the bodily injury is only to accelerate his death from a disease or disorder arising from some other cause.
EXPLANATION
Section 226 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the circumstances under which a person can be held culpable for causing the death of another person through bodily injury. The provision stipulates that if a person causes bodily injury to another person, and that injury results in their death, then the individual responsible for the injury is deemed to have caused the death of the victim, irrespective of whether the injury merely accelerated the death of the victim as a result of some other underlying condition. This provision is crucial in outlining the criteria for holding an individual responsible for causing the death of another person through injury. In many cases, the cause of death may be unclear, especially where the victim had an underlying medical condition. This section ensures that where a person causes bodily injury that ultimately results in the victim's death, they are held responsible for causing that death. It is important to note that Section 226 does not exempt individuals from liability merely because the victim had an underlying medical condition. Instead, it provides a framework for determining whether a particular bodily injury caused or contributed to the victim's death. This ensures that individuals who cause injury that ultimately leads to the death of another person are held accountable for their actions and are not exempted from liability on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. In conclusion, Section 226 is a crucial provision in the Criminal Code of Canada, which ensures that individuals who cause bodily injury resulting in death are held responsible for their actions, regardless of whether the injury accelerated the victim's death from an underlying medical condition. This is key to ensuring justice for victims of bodily harm and preventing individuals from escaping accountability on a technicality.
COMMENTARY
Section 226 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with one of the most serious crimes in the country - causing death to a human being. A person who causes a bodily injury that ultimately results in death is guilty of causing the death of that human being, even if the death was ultimately hastened by a disease or disorder that arose due to some other cause. The rationale behind this section of the Criminal Code is that it recognizes the severity of the crime of causing death to another person, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the fatal injury. Whether the victim was otherwise healthy or had an underlying medical condition, it is essential to hold people accountable for their actions that lead to another person's death. In a legal context, Section 226 distinguishes between the causes of death and the factors that contribute to death. The injury or assault that directly causes a person's death becomes the legal cause of death, even if it isn't the sole cause. In cases where the injury may have been less severe but led to death due to underlying health conditions, the court takes a stance that the injury was still a direct cause of death because the victim would not have died when they did if they had not sustained the injury. This section can be observed in recent high-profile cases in Canada. For example, this section was used in the trial of Toronto-based cardiologist Dr. Elana Fric, who was charged with the murder of her husband. Fric was accused of using a syringe to inject her husband with a fatal dose of insulin, which led to his death. During the trial, the judge ruled that Fric could be found guilty of the murder of her husband, even if the direct cause of death was a heart attack and not the insulin overdose. This is because the overdose of insulin was still a direct cause of the heart attack, which ultimately led to the death of Fric's husband. However, the provision raises important ethical and legal considerations that deserve attention. It highlights the difficulties associated with attributing deaths to specific causes, particularly when a person dies from multiple factors and health conditions. In some cases, if the victim was already battling a terminal illness and was expected to die anyway or had their death caused by several contributors, it may be challenging to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bodily injury caused the person's death. The section also creates a grey area concerning the different degrees of culpability in causing death. It is not clear whether the section applies to a situation where an individual's actions did not cause the immediate death of another person but contributed to the death of that individual. For example, if a person provided drugs to another person, which resulted in their death, but it cannot be conclusively proven that the drugs were the direct cause of death, then the person providing the drugs may only face a lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder. In conclusion, Section 226 of the Criminal Code of Canada reflects the gravity of the crime of taking another person's life. By designating any bodily injury that results in death as a direct cause of the victim's death, the section provides a legal framework that promotes accountability for actions that contribute to a person's passing, albeit indirectly. While challenges, such as equivocal cause of death, may complicate its application, Section 226 remains a vital component of Canadian crime policies targeted at keeping the public safe.
STRATEGY
Section 226 of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the concept of causation in homicide cases. Under this section, a person can be found guilty of causing the death of another person if they have caused a bodily injury that has resulted in death, even if the death was ultimately caused by a disease or disorder that was already present in the victim. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that must be taken into account by the prosecution and the defence. Some of these considerations include: 1. The nature and extent of the bodily injury: In order to establish causation under section 226, the prosecution must prove that the accused caused a bodily injury that contributed to the victim's death. The nature and extent of the bodily injury will be crucial in determining whether the accused's actions were a significant contributing factor to the victim's death. 2. The time between the injury and death: If there was a significant period of time between the injury and the victim's death, it may be more difficult for the prosecution to establish causation. In such cases, the defence may argue that the death was caused by the disease or disorder, rather than the bodily injury. 3. The victim's pre-existing medical conditions: If the victim had pre-existing medical conditions that could have contributed to their death, the defence may argue that the accused's actions were not the primary cause of death. The prosecution must be prepared to address these arguments and establish that the accused's actions were a significant contributing factor to the victim's death. 4. Expert medical evidence: In order to establish causation, the prosecution may need to rely on expert medical evidence to demonstrate the link between the injury and the death. The defence may also present their own medical evidence to challenge the prosecution's case. 5. Jury instructions: In cases where causation is a key issue, it will be important for the trial judge to provide clear and comprehensive instructions to the jury on the legal requirements for establishing causation under section 226. In terms of strategies, both the prosecution and the defence may employ a range of tactics to support their case. Some possible strategies include: 1. Calling expert medical witnesses to provide evidence on the cause of death and the link between the injury and the death. 2. Presenting evidence of the accused's state of mind at the time of the offence, such as evidence of intent or motive, to support or challenge the argument that the bodily injury caused the victim's death. 3. Arguing that other factors, such as medical negligence or the victim's own actions, contributed to their death. 4. Presenting evidence of the victim's medical history and pre-existing conditions, to either support or challenge the argument that the bodily injury caused the victim's death. Ultimately, the strategy employed will depend on the specific facts of the case and the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence available to both the prosecution and the defence.