R v Harvey – 2014 BCSC 1692 (Humpheries):

[16] In the normal course, where the accused raises NCRMD, the court will be required to consider whether the Crown has proven the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. If it has, the court considers whether it has been established, on a balance of probabilities by the party that raised the issue, that NCRMD applies, and finally, if it does not, whether the Crown has proven the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, taking into account the evidence on mental disorder (see R. v. David (2002) 169 CCC (3d) 165; R. v. Brown 2006 BCSC 1581, relying on R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303). I note that the court in Chaulk, at para. 118, would require the Crown to tender as part of its case evidence that will establish the existence of all the elements of the offence with which the accused is charged. This must include intent, but in David, the Ontario Court of appeal said it is preferable to consider whether the accused committed the act forming the subject matter of the charge, and then go on to s. 16 before considering intent. The court pointed out at para. 51, that in some cases it is desirable not to segregate capacity and intent.