Published on September 23, 2025
In Canadian criminal law, an exemption is a mechanism that can exempt a person from criminal liability, even when they have committed the alleged act. The recognized exemptions are minority and mental disorder. They are intended to exclude individuals who, due to their age or mental state, do not have the maturity or discernment capacity required to be judged according to the standards of criminal law. In these sensitive situations, our firm can advise and assist you in order to protect your rights and guide you toward the appropriate steps.
Learn more
Definition and Scope
Criminal exemptions differ from traditional defenses. By invoking an exemption, the accused does not deny having committed the offense. They admit the act but argue that they should not be judged under criminal law. Indeed, the exemption is based on the idea that the accused does not possess the fundamental attributes required, namely reason and autonomy.
There are currently two recognized exemptions: minority and mental disorder. They are justified by a logic of fundamental justice: one cannot require a person to be criminally liable if they lack the maturity or mental capacity to do so.
“Although the state of insanity cannot be equated with that of childhood, there is clearly a link between these two conditions for the purposes of criminal law. These two situations have this in common: they highlight that the individual in question does not meet certain fundamental assumptions of our criminal law model: namely, that the accused is an autonomous and rational being, capable of judging the nature and quality of an act and of distinguishing right from wrong. As for childhood, these fundamental assumptions are called into question by the immaturity of the individual, who has not yet acquired the minimal capacity required by justice and fairness to be judged according to the standards of criminal law. Regarding the state of insanity, the same assumptions are rendered suspect because the accused suffers from a form of mental illness or hallucinations that cause them to have a frame of reference significantly different from that of most people. Due to this mental condition, the accused is largely incapable of forming criminal intent and therefore should not, as a general rule, be subject to criminal liability like those who are sane.” — R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 SCR 1303
1. Exemption Based on Minority
The Criminal Code provides that no person may be convicted of an offense for an act or omission committed while they were under 12 years of age (s. 13 Cr.C.).
- For adolescents aged 12 to 18, the Youth Criminal Justice Act applies.
- For children under 12, the Youth Protection Act applies instead.
This exemption is based on the idea that, generally speaking, criminal intent is less developed in young people. Thus, the legislator favors an approach focused on education and rehabilitation rather than punishment alone.
2. Exemption Based on Mental Disorder
The exemption based on mental disorder is provided for in section 16(1) Cr.C. To rely on it, the following conditions must be met :
- The accused must suffer from a mental disorder;
- They must be incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission;
- Or incapable of knowing that the act or omission was wrong.
Case Example — R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507
In this case, the accused killed, without apparent motive, a friend who was sleeping at his home. He was suffering from paranoid psychosis accompanied by delusional thoughts. Convinced that union members were plotting to “destroy” him and that the victim was part of the plot, he believed he had to kill her to protect himself.
Psychiatrists recognized that, generally, the accused knew that killing was wrong. However, at the time of the murder, his delusional thoughts deprived him of this capacity for judgment and led him to believe that his act was necessary and justified. At the time of the events, the accused knew he was killing the victim, but his perception of reality did not allow him to make rational choices.
Consequences
In such cases, the court does not pronounce a traditional acquittal. Instead, it renders a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This verdict means that the accused did commit the alleged act but is relieved of criminal responsibility.
The relevant moment is that of the commission of the offense, since mental state may vary over time. The notion of mental disorder is defined in section 2 Cr.C.: it covers any disease or disorder affecting reason and its functioning, excluding conditions caused by alcohol, drugs, or transient disturbances.
The burden of proof lies with the party raising the mental disorder, who must demonstrate it on a balance of probabilities.
Finally, intellectual disability is not, in itself, considered a mental disorder altering perception of reality, except in cases of very severe intellectual impairment within the meaning of section 16 Cr.C..
Conclusion
In short, criminal exemptions aim to exclude certain people from the scope of criminal law. Not because they did not commit the alleged act, but because they cannot be considered fully responsible for their actions.
Thus, whether it concerns children, whose maturity and understanding remain limited, or persons with mental disorders, unable to exercise rational judgment at the time of the offense, the legislator recognizes that criminal responsibility must be adjusted according to the individual’s real capacities.
Ultimately, these exemptions reflect a desire to ensure a balance between the protection of society and the respect of fundamental justice. To discuss your situation or obtain appropriate legal support, we invite you to visit our contact page and reach out to our team today.