Indignity or Neglect of Dead Body Laws in Canada

What is an indignity or neglect of dead body charge?

Indignity or neglect of dead body is covered under s. 182 of the Criminal Code.

This charge occurs when a person neglects to perform their legal duty to bury a dead human body or to bury human remains, or if a person interferes in an improper, indecent or undignified way with a dead human body or human remains.

Indignity or neglect of a dead body is characterized as a hybrid offence and is contained in Part V of the Criminal Code “Sexual Offences, Public Morals & Disorderly Conduct”. A hybrid offence is an offence in which the Crown Prosecutor has the choice to proceed either summarily or by indictment. The Crown Prosecution will decide which way to proceed by looking at a variety of factors such as previous criminal history, the individual circumstances of the case, and the level of harm.

Examples 

Some examples of a Nudity charge may include the following:

• Having sex with a dead human body;
• Disposing of a stillborn child in a public garbage;
• Eating or attempting to eat human remains and
• Dismembering a dead human body.

Defences

The defences available to an indignity or neglect of dead body charge are entirely dependent on the facts of your case.

However, some defences to an indignity or neglect of dead body charge may include:

• The accused had a lawful excuse for failing to perform their legal duty to buy a dead human body;
• The remains in question are not human but are of an animal;
• The interference with the human remains or dead body was not improper, indecent, or undignified; and
• Any applicable Charter

These are not the only defences available for an indignity or neglect of dead body charge. Again, specific defences may only apply in certain cases and a lawyer will analyze and apply defences that are the best fit in each individual case.

Punishment

An Indignity or Neglect of Dead Body charge entails a maximum punishment as follows:

• Imprisonment for a period of not more than five years if prosecuted by indictment; or
• If prosecuted summarily:
  • A $5,000 fine;
  • Imprisonment for no more than two years less one day, or
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.

The maximum punishment for an indignity or neglect of dead body charge in Canada can include fines and imprisonment, but the severity of the punishment will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.

Indignity or neglect of dead body charges can also entail severe consequences for current and future employment opportunities and immigration status.

Legal advice from a qualified lawyer is recommended if you are facing such charges or have specific legal questions about your case.

Overview of the Offence 

According to s. 182 of the Criminal Code:

The Guilty Act (Actus Reus)

The actus reus for an indignity or neglect of dead body charge under s. 182 is established by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the following:

Subsection (a):

• The individual neglected to perform a duty that is imposed on them by law; or
• The individual neglected to perform a duty that they undertook; and
• The neglected duty must specifically pertain to the burial of a dead human body or human remains.

Subsection (b):

• The individual improperly or indecently interfered with a dead human body or human remains; or
• The individual offered an indignity to a dead human body or human remains. Meaning the individual showed callous disrespect or caused harm or offence to the dignity of the deceased.

R v Moyer held that section 182(b) does not apply to offering indignities to monuments per se, however, it does apply to offering indignities to monuments that mark human remains.

The Guilty Mind (Mens Rea)

The mens rea for an indignity or neglect of dead body charge under s. 182 includes proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

Subsection (a):

• The accused person intended to neglect their duty; or
• The accused was aware that their actions were wrongful or prohibited by law, and they proceeded with those actions regardless.

Subsection (b):

• The accused intended to improperly or indecently interfere with a dead human body or human remains; or
• The accused was aware that their actions were wrongful or prohibited by law, and they proceeded with those actions regardless.

R v Mills held that the intentional act of using heavy machinery, such as a backhoe, to disturb the contents of a grave, leading to the disruption of the respectful and tranquil burial of human remains, constitutes a violation under Section 182 of the law.

R v Ladue held that not knowing the human body was dead is only a defence if the accused’s actions would have been lawful if the body had been alive.

Defences

How to Beat an Indignity or Neglect of Dead Body Charge

Every case is different. The availability and strength of any defence depend entirely on the specific facts of your case. The strength of any available defence rests on the evidence against you and the precise details of the allegations. However, the following are some common defences that may be used when fighting an Indignity of Neglect of Dead Body charge:

Factual innocence

A strong defence against an invitation to a nudity charge is to maintain that you are factually innocent. If you can show that the facts and the evidence do not support that you neglected to perform a duty pertaining to the burial of a dead body, you did not improperly or indecently interfere with a dead body or human remains, or other basic elements of the offence are not met, then the Crown will not be able to secure a conviction for an indignity or neglect of dead body charge.

Lack of mens rea or actus reus

As evident from the detailed discussion above related to the mens rea and actus reus elements of an indignity or neglect of dead body offence, there are many layers to such a charge and the Crown is required to prove all of the pertinent elements. A strong defence lawyer will analyze all of the evidence that the Crown is relying on and endeavour to identify any gaps in the evidence or failures to meet the requisite mental and physical standards of the offence. For section 182 offences, this might include rebutting claims that the act was committed, it was committed knowingly, the act committed was an indignity, etc.

Identity

Depending on the circumstances of your case, a possible defence to an indignity or neglect dead body charge may be to raise an identity defence. For example, you may have been incorrectly identified as the perpetrator or if the conduct in question was captured on a poor-quality video or wiretap. In this case, for this defence to be raised successfully, you will have to prove that you were not the person who was found to be neglecting or interfering with a dead body or human remains. This can be done by corroborating evidence, such as an alibi, to remove yourself from the offence.

Any applicable Charter defences 

The Charter sets out your rights and freedoms before and after your arrest. If the police fail to abide by these rights deliberately or inadvertently, it could aid in your defence. If any of your Charter rights have been violated before or after your arrest, you may be able to have some or all of the evidence that the Crown is relying on to secure a conviction excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Punishments

The Criminal Code provides for a possible maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years for those convicted of an indignity or neglect of dead body charge if prosecuted by indictment. If prosecuted summarily, there is also the potential for a maximum fine of $5,000, imprisonment for no more than 2 years less 1 day, or both a fine and imprisonment.

Whether you intend to plead guilty to a charge under section 182, it is important to consult a lawyer. There may be factors which apply to your punishment/sentencing which are relevant and important for consideration, which may result in a lesser punishment. This depends on the unique circumstances of each matter and is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you go to jail for indignity or neglect of dead body in Canada?

In Canada, Section 182 of the Criminal Code addresses the issue of indignity or neglect of a dead body. This legal provision underscores the seriousness with which the Canadian legal system views such actions. Under Section 182, individuals can be charged with an offence if they commit any act that shows disrespect or neglect towards a deceased person’s body. Depending on the circumstances and the gravity of the offence, those involved may face up to five years imprisonment.

What does offering an indignity to a body mean?

In a legal context, offering an indignity to a body refers to actions or conduct that demonstrate a lack of respect, reverence, or proper treatment towards a deceased person’s remains. This can encompass a wide range of behaviours, such as desecrating a corpse, mutilating or disfiguring it, or engaging in any act that would degrade the dignity of the deceased. Offering an indignity to a body is considered a serious offence and it is addressed under Section 182 of the Criminal Code. Ultimately, the concept of offering an indignity to a body underscores the societal and legal obligation to treat the deceased with the same respect and dignity afforded to the living, reflecting the importance of upholding cultural and ethical norms surrounding the handling of human remains.

What is considered a dead body in Canada? 

In Canada, a dead body is legally defined as the lifeless physical remains of a human being. This definition encompasses various stages of post-mortem condition, from a recently deceased individual to skeletal remains. It is crucial to understand that Canadian law recognizes the importance of treating these remains with respect and dignity. Any actions that show disregard, neglect, or indignity towards a deceased person’s physical remains, regardless of their condition, can lead to criminal charges under Section 182 of the Criminal Code. This legal recognition of the sanctity of human remains underscores the societal and ethical importance placed on treating the deceased with the utmost respect, regardless of their state of decomposition or preservation.

Published Decisions

R v Mills, 1993 CanLii 38 (SCC)

The accused was charged and convicted of “offering indignities to human remains” contrary to s. 182 of the Criminal Code. The accused purposefully destroyed coffins while digging up graves and using a backhoe to refill the graves. This resulted in the peaceful laying to rest of human remains and the conviction was upheld by both the Manitoba Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada

You can read the full decision here.

R v Moyer, 1994 CanLII 54 (SCC)

The Respondent was a “skinhead” and took neo-Nazi photographs in a Jewish cemetery. Part of the photoshoot depicted urinating on actual identifiable gravestones and was charged with offering indignities to human remains contrary to s. 182(b) of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal overturned his conviction, however, the Supreme Court of Canada held that using a deceased person’s monument marking their human remains constituted the offence.

You can read the full decision here.

R v Ladue, 1965 CanLII 682 (YKCA)

In this case, the accused was convicted of having sex with or attempting to have sex with a deceased woman. The accused appealed the charge claiming he did not know the woman was deceased. The Court of Appeal upheld the charge and stated that this would only be a defence if the accused’s actions had been innocent and lawful had the body been alive.

You can read the full decision here.