top of page

Actus Reus

  • The accused’s actions must go beyond mere preparation to commit the crime. In R. v. Root, 2008 ONCA 869, [2008] O.J. No. 5214 at para. 100, Watt J.A. described the difference between mere preparation and an attempt to commit an offence: R v Ellis, 2016 ONCA 358 at para 32

    • This requirement of proximity, expressed in the divide between preparation and attempt, has to do with the sequence of events leading to the crime that an accused has in mind to commit. To be guilty of an attempt, an accused must have progressed a sufficient distance (beyond mere preparation) down the intended path. An act is proximate if it is the first of a series of similar or related acts intended to result cumulatively in a substantive crime. 


Mens Rea

  • The evidence must establish that the accused intended to perpetrate the specific offence in question, whether committing the offence was possible or not: R v Ellis, 2016 ONCA 358 at para 31

bottom of page