R v Tatton

R. v. Tatton

2015 SCC 33
Supreme Court of Canada — Moldaver J. (McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Wagner and Gascon JJ. concurring) | June 4, 2015

Background

Paul Tatton was living in his ex-girlfriend Ms. Spencer's guest room, hoping they'd get back together. When she went to Kingston to visit friends, he got jealous and drank heavily — about 52 ounces of alcohol. While highly intoxicated, he decided to cook bacon, put oil in a pan, set the stove to "high," then drove to Tim Hortons for coffee. When he returned 20 minutes later, the house was on fire. The contents were destroyed, though firefighters saved the structure.

Tatton was charged with arson under section 434 of the Criminal Code. At trial, he claimed the fire was an accident — he thought he'd set the stove to "low." The key question was whether his extreme intoxication could be considered as a defence.

Issues

1. Is arson under section 434 a general intent or specific intent offence?
2. Can self-induced intoxication short of automatism be used as a defence to arson?

The General vs. Specific Intent Distinction

This case clarified a crucial distinction in criminal law. For general intent offences, you cannot use intoxication as a defence unless you were so drunk you were basically unconscious (automatism). For specific intent offences, intoxication can negate the required mental element even if you weren't unconscious.

The Supreme Court ruled that arson under section 434 is a general intent offence. The mental element is simply the intentional or reckless causing of damage to property by fire — no complex reasoning required. The Court emphasized that recognizing the obvious risk of leaving oil heating on a stove doesn't require sophisticated thought processes that intoxication could impair.

The Court also noted policy reasons: alcohol is commonly associated with property damage crimes, so allowing intoxication as a defence would be counterproductive. As the Court put it, allowing drunk people to escape arson charges because they were drunk would "contradict the social policy underlying these crimes."

Key Takeaway

You cannot use intoxication as a defence to most property damage offences, including arson.

This principle extends beyond Criminal Code offences to many Provincial Offences Act charges involving property damage or public safety. If you're charged with an offence where alcohol consumption is commonly involved, don't expect intoxication to provide a legal excuse unless you were literally unconscious.