Determining state of mind

Many cases require a determination of the intention of an individual. While arising mainly in the criminal context this issue is not unknown in civil and family cases.

Unfortunately, direct evidence of mental state is virtually never available. At best, an inference as to mental state must be made.

The presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of their actions is helpful here. The presumption was nicely restated this week by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Peng, 2009 ONCA 921 where the Court held a jury instruction, as follows, was "flawless":

[34] The trial judge next instructed the jury on the common sense inference that "when a sane and sober person does something that has predictable consequences, that person usually intends or means to cause those consequences". The trial judge cautioned the jury, however, that their task was to determine the person's "actual state of mind" and that the common sense inference was permissive, not mandatory.