Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 8, 2025

A Method for Evaluating Timeliness and Accuracy of Volitional Motor Responses to Vibrotactile Stimuli
Published on: August 2, 2016
The Ontario Court of Appeal Takes a New Look at Automatism in R v. Sullivan
1Dr. Glancy is Associate Professor, Director Forensic Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Dr. Patel is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Staff Psychiatrist, Forensic Division of the Complex Care and Recovery Programme at the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction, Toronto, ON, Canada. graham.glancy@utoronto.ca.
Abstract:
Automatism has long been a significant topic of discussion between forensic psychiatry and the courts. In a recent case, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed this concept in the setting of a Canadian law, s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, that limits the defense of self-induced intoxication for any offense involving violence. The court found that s. 33.1 violated the presumption of innocence and the principles of fundamental justice and could not be saved by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it was not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. Therefore, the court declared s. 33.1 to be of no force and effect. In this article, we describe the legal history of automatism in Canadian courts and the reasoning behind this important decision. Finally, we discuss some implications for forensic practice.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Reason and Intuition
Major Somatic Sensory Pathways
Torts II
Torts III
Quasi-intentional torts in healthcare involve acts where intent is not directed to harm an individual but results in harm due to careless or reckless speech.

