Ayla’s conduct was ultimately influenced by her mental instability and is subject to the law of section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada [hereinafter, Code], the fitness to stand trial, and 16(1), which is the defence of mental disorder. Though these two laws may appear to be similar with one another as they handle offenders with mental disorders, they have distinct features and case laws which sets them apart, providing crucial elements for fairness of trial regarding those who are Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD). At the end of the trial, Ayla’s disposition will be determined if she is found to be NCRMD by the Crown.
Before one can plead for NCRMD, one must undergo the test for fitness to stand trial. This test differs from the definition of mental disorder in section 16(1) of the Code, since the test “is predicated on the existence of a mental disorder and focuses on the ability to instruct counsel and conduct a defence” (R v Whittle, 1994). Additionally, the
…show more content…
Before the court can evaluate the specific details of this section, they must first re-define what a mental disorder is based on case laws. There are three crucial cases which contributed in shaping the definition of a mental disorder: Cooper v. R., R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, and R. v. Stone cases.
In Cooper v. R. (1980), Justice Dickson defines disease of the mind— also known as mental disorder— as the following:
...“[D]isease of the mind” embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning… [where of] such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing that it is