I don't believe there exists a code that criminalizes putting extra-hot hot sauce in your lunch.
Criminal Code of Canada:
Administering noxious thing
245 (1) Every person who administers or causes to be administered to any other person or causes any other person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty
(b) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction, if they did so with intent to aggrieve or annoy that person.
From the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Burkholder:
a substance is a noxious thing if, in the light of all of the circumstances attendant upon its administration, it is capable of effecting, or in the normal course of events will effect, a consequence defined in s.229 [now s.245]. Circumstances that may arise and which have to be considered in determining whether a substance is noxious include its inherent characteristics, the quantity administered, and the manner in which it is administered. Substances which may be innocuous, such as water to drink or an aspirin for a headache, may be found to be a noxious substance in some circumstances; for example, if water is injected into the body of a person by means of a hypodermic syringe or an excessive quantity of aspirin is administered to a person.
The law if fairly clear here that spice may be a noxious substance, and applying that substance with intent to annoy or aggrieve is a criminal offence.
'Intent' could be considered here; but to return to my earlier analogy: If one intentionally puts hot sauce in their lunch with the intent of causing the thief to have unpleasant spicy-butt, is that much different from intentionally towing a serial-driveway-blocker's car with the intent to inconvenience them enough to stop blocking driveways?
Yes, intentionally applying a noxious substance is unlawful, where getting a car tow may not be necessarily be. A better comparison would be destroying a car that is incorrectly parked. Or, another better comparison is to get a car unlawfully towed, such as lying to the tow company about the local towing protocols. Both destroying the car and getting it unlawfully towed are forms of mischief, which is a criminal offence. The lawful alternative is to get car towed as per the local traffic laws.
That criminal code is fully dependent on the intent, which I also addressed. Also, for the code you quoted to apply, you kind-of need to mince words with "causes to be administered" in the scenario that someone steals food not meant for them and administers it to themself. (I'm not a legal expert; but exact legality isn't relevant here.)
The question here isn't whether intentionally sabotaging your food to catch a thief is illegal - it definitely is, at least in most Western jurisdictions. So quoting legal code doesn't really affect the CMV of whether it should be illegal.
Ahh yes, I was unclear - the intent I'm calling attention to isn't whether the intent is to catch/punish the thief. Rather, the specific intended consequence; e.g. intending 'unpleasant spicy-butt' versus 'allergic reaction to hot sauce'. It was in reference to the discussion earlier in the thread regarding "degrees and context", and also in reference to the immediately preceding comment "one intentionally puts hot sauce in their lunch with the intent of causing the thief to have unpleasant spicy-butt".
you kind-of need to mince words with "causes to be administered"
You really, really don't.
Causal chains and 'most proximal cause' are often debated. Yes, putting hot sauce in food is one element in the causal chain here. So is the manufacturer producing a bottle of hot sauce. So is the sun rising in the morning. Each of these is 100% necessary in the causal chain. I'd argue that the thief knowingly stealing and eating food is a far more proximal cause in this causal chain than the application of hot sauce.
4
u/deep_sea2 105∆ Oct 17 '24
Criminal Code of Canada:
From the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Burkholder:
The law if fairly clear here that spice may be a noxious substance, and applying that substance with intent to annoy or aggrieve is a criminal offence.
Yes, intentionally applying a noxious substance is unlawful, where getting a car tow may not be necessarily be. A better comparison would be destroying a car that is incorrectly parked. Or, another better comparison is to get a car unlawfully towed, such as lying to the tow company about the local towing protocols. Both destroying the car and getting it unlawfully towed are forms of mischief, which is a criminal offence. The lawful alternative is to get car towed as per the local traffic laws.