Download PDF - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

A Tough Pill to Swallow 145
really “treated” by his medication. If his medication never actually brought him
out of his delusional state, then his non-adherence to medication could not be
attributed to his own doing. On the other hand, if the medication helped him
enough to make the delusions subside, then the question arises as to whether he
ought to have been held responsible for failing to take his medication where such
a failure contributed to the deaths of his parents.
It must be remembered that Joubert, despite his mental illness, functioned
outside of the mental health system. He managed to hold down a job and care for
himself, albeit with several lapses. 10 As such, it is more than arguable that Joubert,
as an independent and reasonably self-sufficient member of the community,
should be held responsible for his actions on a day-to-day basis, at least during his
more stable periods. If he acted negligently in those stable periods (assuming they
existed), then it is legitimate to inquire as to his criminal culpability. As Joubert
committed suicide, it is moot in the practical sense to discuss what kind of
culpability, if any, should be attributed to him for his failure to adhere to his
medication schedule. Nevertheless, the scenario is one where the argument of this
paper could apply.
As a point of contrast to Joubert there is the Vince Li case. 11 This case is
arguably the most widely publicized and infamous Manitoba case in recent
memory which involved the NCR defence; however, as there was no evidence that
Li was aware of the danger that he might pose in a psychotic state or that he might
be psychotic at all, he cannot properly be said to have exacerbated his own mental
disorder. Unlike Joubert, Li was on no treatment regimen and so he cannot be
said to have knowingly contributed in any way to his own deterioration by failing
to adhere to one. As a matter of distinction, then, it must be clearly stated that Li
or someone in similar circumstances would not be subject to the argument set out
in this article. This distinction will be further discussed later.
In spite of this, many of the facts in the Li case serve as a useful hypothetical
scenario. In the spring of 2009, both the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench and
the province’s own “court of public opinion” considered and debated the NCR
defence in the context of the Vince Li case. The case was widely publicized due to
the extreme nature of the killing perpetrated by Li. Li and his victim were
unknown to each other and shared adjacent seats on a Greyhound bus bound for
Winnipeg. Li suffered from undiagnosed schizophrenia at the time, and in the
midst of a delusion, he attacked the sleeping victim with a knife, killing and
ultimately dismembering him and consuming part of the body. Legally speaking,
10
11
Ibid at para 25.
Mike McIntyre, “Vincent Li found not criminally responsible for murder”, Winnipeg Free Press (03
May 2009), online: .