Contrary to recent criticisms to the effect that the Supreme Court of Canada favours the rights of criminal defendants and shuns the interests of the community, the Lamer Court has in fact championed the moral requisites of the community in its constitutional jurisprudence on criminal fault. By viewing rights and responsibilities as inextricably linked, the Lamer Court implicitly borrows from natural law traditions espoused by the Dickson Court\u27s most conspicuous dissenter on criminal fault issues-Mr. Justice William McIntyre. This article argues that the tradition or philosophy underlying criminal fault as per the Lamer Court contrasts with the individualist, rights-oriented tendency of the Dickson Court, and corresponds with the approach of William McIntyre. Accordingly, the controversial holding of the Court in R v. Daviault does not signal a retreat from the present Court\u27s distinctive approach, as exemplified by the majority opinion in the Creighton quartet and in DeSousa, Hundal, and Rodriguez
