NCA Canadian Criminal Law Exam: Syllabus, Format and How to Prepare (2026–27)

Canadian Criminal Law covers substantive criminal law and criminal procedure, from the elements of an offence to bail, trial and sentencing. The NCA revised the syllabus in August 2026, with a new edition of the procedure text. This guide sets out what the syllabus requires, how the sample exam is built, and how to prepare.

Checked against the NCA's Canadian Criminal Law syllabus (revised August 2026) and sample exam on October 25, 2026.

The exam at a glance

• Syllabus version: revised August 2026.
• Length: 3 hours, online, with a live remote proctor.
• Open book, paper only: any printed materials. The syllabus says you must have a hard copy of the Criminal Code with you at the exam.
• Marking: pass/fail, with 50% as the pass mark.
• What is tested: the syllabus says you must identify the issues, identify the material rules (including the Criminal Code and the case law), and explain how they apply to the facts. Listing issues, describing rules or asserting conclusions without applying the law will not pass.
• Sample exam structure: six problem questions worth 100 marks (15, 10, 15, 20, 20 and 20), each with a suggested time from 18 to 36 minutes that adds up to three hours. The questions cover committal at a preliminary inquiry, the likely verdict at trial, an objective-fault offence, a reasoned sentence, a regulatory offence and the availability of defences.
• Caveat: the NCA says the sample shows the style of questions only. It does not reflect the content, structure or value of questions on a real exam, which vary from session to session.

What the syllabus covers

The syllabus has 32 numbered topics grouped under these headings:

• General Overview and Preliminary Matters (topics 1–4): sources of criminal law (no common law offences, but common law defences survive), federal and provincial powers and the Charter, indictable, summary and hybrid offences, and how to interpret criminal provisions, including purposive interpretation and the French and English versions.
• The Elements of a Criminal or Regulatory Offence (5–8): actus reus (voluntariness, possession, consent, causation, omissions), subjective mens rea (intention, knowledge, wilful blindness, recklessness), objective fault, and regulatory offences.
• Extensions of Criminal Liability (9–12): aiding and abetting, counselling, attempts and conspiracy, and corporate and association liability under ss 22.1 and 22.2.
• Select Criminal Defences (13–22): mental disorder, automatism, simple and extreme intoxication, defence of the person, necessity, duress, provocation, entrapment, and error of law and colour of right.
• The Adversarial Proceeding (23): presumption of innocence, burdens and presumptions, the neutral trier, and the roles of Crown and defence.
• Getting to the Trial: The Criminal Investigation (24): police powers and Charter ss 8 and 9.
• Getting to the Trial: Taking Control over the Accused (25): arrest, appearance without arrest, the right to counsel and bail.
• Getting Ready for Trial (26–30): disclosure and third-party records, preliminary inquiries, jury selection, pre-trial motions and delay under s 11(b).
• Sentencing (31) and Appeals and Review (32).

The syllabus says every case listed should be read, even those labelled as examples, and that you must be able to break down the elements of any offence put in an exam question, including ones not covered in the readings.

Required and optional materials

Required:

• Steve Coughlan, Criminal Procedure, 5th ed. (Toronto: UTP, 2026)
• Kent Roach, Criminal Law, 8th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2022)
• The most up-to-date Criminal Code. An annotated Code is highly recommended. The syllabus names Martin's Criminal Code, the Practitioner's Edition and Tremeear's as the most used editions; any is acceptable.

Optional: three further texts and casebooks by Stuart and Roach are listed; the syllabus says they are not necessary to write the exam.

The leading cases and tests

Fault

• R v Sault Ste. Marie (1978): the three categories of offence. True crimes require full mens rea; regulatory offences are presumed to be strict liability (the accused can prove due diligence or a reasonable mistake of fact on a balance of probabilities); absolute liability needs clear legislative intent.
• Reference re s 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (1985) and R v Wholesale Travel (1991): absolute liability combined with possible imprisonment violates s 7. Strict liability survives as a reasonable limit.
• R v Martineau (1990): murder requires subjective foresight of death.
• R v Creighton (1993) and R v Beatty (2008): objective fault requires a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person, assessed in context. For unlawful act manslaughter, the fault is objective foresight of bodily harm that is neither trivial nor transitory.
• R v J.F. (2008) and R v Javanmardi (2019): criminal negligence under s 219 requires a marked and substantial departure.
• R v Briscoe (2010): wilful blindness is deliberately avoiding confirmation of a strongly suspected fact. It substitutes for knowledge and is distinct from recklessness.

Actus reus and consent

• R v Nette (2001) and R v Maybin (2012): causation requires a significant contribution to the result; Maybin deals with intervening acts. Nette also notes the higher standard for first degree murder under s 231(5).
• R v Ewanchuk (1999) and R v Barton (2019): consent to sexual activity is the complainant's subjective state of mind; there is no implied consent. The mistaken belief defence requires an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, limited by s 273.2.

Defences

• R v Khill (2021): the approach to self-defence under s 34: a reasonable belief that force or a threat was being used, a defensive purpose, and an act that was reasonable in the circumstances, weighing the factors in s 34(2), including the accused's role in the incident.
• R v Ryan (2013): the elements of duress under s 17 and at common law.
• R v Latimer (2001): necessity requires imminent peril, no reasonable legal alternative, and proportionality.
• R v Stone (1999): the framework for automatism, including the presumption that it stems from a mental disorder.
• R v Daviault (1994) and R v Brown (2022): extreme intoxication akin to automatism, and the constitutional problem with the original s 33.1. Read s 33.1 as amended in 2022.
• R v Mack (1988): entrapment leads to a stay where police offer an opportunity without reasonable suspicion or a bona fide inquiry, or induce the crime.

Procedure and sentencing

• R v Lifchus (1997): the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
• R v Cinous (2002): a defence goes to the trier of fact only if it has an "air of reality".
• R v Arcuri (2001): the preliminary inquiry judge asks whether there is evidence on which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict, with limited weighing of circumstantial evidence.
• R v Grant (2009): whether to exclude evidence under s 24(2), weighing the seriousness of the state conduct, its impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests, and society's interest in a decision on the merits.
• R v Stinchcombe (1991): the Crown must disclose all relevant information that is not privileged.
• R v Jordan (2016): presumptive ceilings on delay under s 11(b): 18 months in provincial court, 30 months in superior court. The syllabus also lists R v Vrbanic, 2026 SCC 19, and notes 2026 Criminal Code amendments allowing remedies other than a stay.
• R v Gladue (1999): s 718.2(e) requires sentencing judges to consider the unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders.
• R v Anthony-Cook (2016): a judge can depart from a joint submission only if it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest.

2027 exam dates

Canadian Criminal Law is offered four times in 2027:

• February 8–11
• May 11–14
• August 9–12
• November 8–10 and 12

Registration opens about six to eight weeks before each session and closes about three and a half weeks later. See the full NCA exam schedule for 2027.

How to prepare

1. Choose your Criminal Code early and learn to navigate it. You must bring one. Tab the sections you will use most: s 2 definitions, parties (ss 21–24), the defences in ss 16, 17, 33.1, 34 and 35, homicide (ss 222–232), sexual assault and consent (ss 265, 273.1, 273.2), and sentencing (ss 718–718.4).
2. Build an offence-analysis template. For any offence: actus reus elements, matching mens rea for each, definitions and presumptions in the Code, then defences. The syllabus expects you to apply this to offences you have never studied.
3. Keep a separate procedure tab set keyed to Coughlan: police powers, arrest and bail, disclosure, preliminary inquiry, jury, delay and appeals.
4. Prepare a sentencing page: the s 718 purposes, s 718.1 proportionality, s 718.2 aggravating and mitigating factors and restraint, Gladue, and the relevant ranges.
5. Time by the clock in the paper. The sample's suggested times work out to about 1.8 minutes per mark. Stick to them; a 20-mark answer left half-written costs more than a 10-mark answer cut short.
6. Answer the exact question. The sample asks specific things, such as whether a committal will happen or what verdict is likely. Answer that, applying the right standard.

Common mistakes

• Answering a different question. The sample's instructions warn against discussing a different offence than the one asked about, or discussing Charter rights in the abstract.
• Confusing recklessness and wilful blindness. The syllabus explains why they must be kept distinct, especially for offences that require knowledge.
• Using the wrong fault standard. Murder, criminal negligence, other objective-fault offences and regulatory offences each have a different standard.
• Missing the regulatory offence analysis. Classify the offence first (full mens rea, strict or absolute liability), then apply the right defence.
• Applying the old self-defence provisions. The 2013 amendments replaced them; use s 34 as interpreted in Khill.
• Relying on foreign doctrine. For example, the syllabus notes that simple intoxication in Canada asks whether the accused actually formed the specific intent, not whether they had the capacity to form it.

Sources

• NCA: Canadian Criminal Law syllabus (revised August 2026)
• NCA: Canadian Criminal Law sample exam
• NCA: Exam outlines and samples

Lexn is an independent study platform and is not affiliated with the NCA or the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Always confirm the current syllabus and exam rules with the NCA.

---

Preparing for Canadian Criminal Law? Lexn's Canadian Criminal Law study guide follows the syllabus topic by topic and prints cleanly for your binder. Read Part I free. Then practise problem questions under time with a timed exam simulation, and work through hard cases in the Canadian Criminal Law Study Circle.