Unreasonable Conviction for Criminal Negligence
The latest instalment of our Canlii Connects case summaries reviews an Ontario Court of Appeal decision where the conviction for criminal negligence causing death was found to be unreasonable.
Issue: Was the conviction for criminal negligence unreasonable?
Facts: Mr. Kuntz was working as the overnight attendant at an adult residential group home. Mr. Yeung was one of the residents. He suffered from Smith-Magenis syndrome, a genetic disorder that causes physical, mental and behavioural issues. On the night of his death Mr. Yeung had soiled himself. Mr. Kuntz placed him in the bathtub but left him alone so that he (Mr. Yeung) could calm down. This was contrary to protocol at the home.
When Mr. Kuntz returned Mr. Yeung was submerged in the bathtub and was struggling to breathe. Mr. Kuntz called 911 but Mr. Yeung could not be revived.
Mr. Kuntz was charged with criminal negligence causing death and was convicted by a jury. He appealed, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.
Ruling: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal finding that the verdict was unreasonable.
It is quite rare, though not impossible to succeed with an argument of unreasonable verdict. Where an unreasonable verdict is alleged, the question is “whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could reasonably have rendered”: R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168, at p. 185; R. v. Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381, at para. 36. Where the Crown’s case depends on circumstantial evidence, an appellate court must ask whether the jury, acting judicially, could reasonably be satisfied that the accused’s guilt was the only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence taken as a whole: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at paras. 55-56.
The court summarized the elements for the offence of criminal negligence causing death. In order to prove the offence, the Crown was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
i. the appellant undertook an act, or omitted to do something it was his legal duty to do;
ii. that the appellant’s act or omission showed a wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the deceased; and
iii. the appellant’s act or omissions caused the deceased death.
The court on appeal ultimately found that the evidence was completely lacking in relation to causation where the Crown was required to show that the appellant’s conduct contributed significantly to the deceased’s death.
[54] In the absence of evidence to demonstrate what may have led to any drowning and given that Dr. McAuliffe could not eliminate cardiac arrythmia as a cause of death, I would hold that the verdict was unreasonable. In these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to enable a trier of fact, acting reasonably, to conclude that the outcome would not have been any different had the appellant remained in the bathroom throughout Mr. Yeung’s bath.
The court also noted the dangers of an unreasonable verdict being heightened given the charge and facts of the case. Anyone who has taken first year criminal law will recall how challenging it can be to understand the offence of criminal negligence. On the facts, the court explained that there was a real risk the jury could jump to the conclusion that because Mr. Yeung died in the bathtub, Mr. Kuntz’ conduct in leaving him alone there must have played a significant contributing role in his death.