In R. v. Dhatt (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the defence of duress:
[25] The appellant also submits that the trial judge erred in the way she dealt with the defence of duress. I disagree.
[26] In accordance with R. v. Ryan, 2013 SCC 3, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 14, the trial judge outlined the five elements of duress, which may be summarized as follows:
(i) that the accused was threatened with death or bodily harm unless he or she committed the offence;
(ii) that the accused reasonably believed the threat would be carried out;
(iii) that the accused had no safe avenue of escape from the harm threatened, evaluated against the actions of a reasonable person in the same circumstances;
(iv) that the threat caused the accused to commit the offence; and
(iv) that the harm caused by committing the offence was not disproportionate to the harm threatened, evaluated against the behaviour we expect of reasonable person in the same circumstances.
[27] The trial judge correctly noted that if the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the five elements were not present, the defence of duress was not available to the appellant. She found that the Crown had proven that four of the five elements were not present. In my view, these findings were open to her on the record and are subject to deference on appeal.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
