R. v. Copeland
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Citation | 2025 ONCA 278 |
| Docket Number | C68023 |
| Date | 14 April 2025 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
5 practice notes
-
R. v. Herman
...he did not testify to any loss of control or panic. Rather, he said he only panicked after the gun went off. Relying on R v Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278, the Crown claims in its factum on acquittal that “simple reflex does not necessarily equate with a loss of control” (at para 95). This, the Cr......
-
R. v. Lam
...The accused must have “acted on the sudden” before there was time for the accused’s passion to cool (subjective element). R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278, at para. 36; R. v. Williams, 2025 ONCA 467, at para. 13; R. v. Bistoyong, 2024 ONSC 5616 at para [176] With respec......
-
R. v. Williams
...conduct must cause the accused to suddenly lose self-control and act before regaining self-control. More recently, in R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278, at para. 36, this court framed the four elements somewhat differently, in a way that separates them into objective and subjective · There must......
-
R. v. Bruce
...The elements of the defence of provocation were summarized in the recent decision of R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278: [36] Provocation has been referred to as an “allowance made for human frailty”: R. v. Campbell (1977), 17 O.R. (2d) 673 (C.A.), at p. 682; R. v. Tran, 2010 SCC 58, at para. 22......
Get Started for Free
5 cases
-
R. v. Herman
...he did not testify to any loss of control or panic. Rather, he said he only panicked after the gun went off. Relying on R v Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278, the Crown claims in its factum on acquittal that “simple reflex does not necessarily equate with a loss of control” (at para 95). This, the Cr......
-
R. v. Lam
...The accused must have “acted on the sudden” before there was time for the accused’s passion to cool (subjective element). R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278, at para. 36; R. v. Williams, 2025 ONCA 467, at para. 13; R. v. Bistoyong, 2024 ONSC 5616 at para [176] With respec......
-
R. v. Williams
...conduct must cause the accused to suddenly lose self-control and act before regaining self-control. More recently, in R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278, at para. 36, this court framed the four elements somewhat differently, in a way that separates them into objective and subjective · There must......
-
R. v. Bruce
...The elements of the defence of provocation were summarized in the recent decision of R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278: [36] Provocation has been referred to as an “allowance made for human frailty”: R. v. Campbell (1977), 17 O.R. (2d) 673 (C.A.), at p. 682; R. v. Tran, 2010 SCC 58, at para. 22......
Get Started for Free
