what statue do the case below set in terms of defining "wrong" under - Criminal code S.16(1). No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

R. v. Landry (1991) Man charged w/ 1st degree murder and admitted killed victim, said he was God and his victim was Satan and had to kill Satan to fulfill his divine mission to rid the world of the forces of evil He knew murder was a crime but was found NCRMD b/c psychotic mental condition rendered him incapable of knowing ordinary person would regard killing as morally wrong

R. v. Oommen (1994)- Killed woman by shooting her while she was sleeping-charged w/ 2nd degree murder. Had many years of paranoid delusion psychosis - believed members of local union involved in conspiracy to kill him Thought the woman was going to kill him so he had to kill her before she did so. Psychiatrists said his mental disorder would not cause him to lose intellectual capacity to distinguish b/t right and wrong in abstract and to know that killing was wrong - but mental disorder gave him honest belief that killing the woman was justified. Judge says murder was caused by his mental disorder and that he did not believe it was wrong - but he did have general capacity to know right from wrong so wasn't relieved from criminal responsibility (but this is wrong - shouldn't be focusing on general ability

R. v. Molodowic (2000)- Shoot his grandpa to death

Had paranoid schizophrenia - affected w/ visual and auditory hallucinations and elusions of persecution. He appreciated the nature and quality of his acts and knew it was a crime - but did not know that his acts were morally wrong Molodowic's "act of shooting was consistent with his mental disorder having caused him to believe that only in so doing could he save himself from further torment. Rmb: just cuz someone has severe mental disorder does not automatically lead to conclusion that accused lacked capacity to know that their conduct would be considered morally wrong by ordinary members of society.

And that NCRMD includes proving on balance of probabilities that they lacked capacity to knowconduct was blameworthy

R. v. Mock(2016)- diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, killed his brother, whom he believed to be a clone, during a delusional episode. He destroyed his cellphone, thinking the CIA and FBI were surveilling him, and attempted suicide after the killing. Despite strong expert evidence supporting the Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) defense, the jury convicted Mock of second-degree murder. The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, deeming the jury's decision unreasonable and finding that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the NCRMD defense. The key trial issue was whether Mock was in a psychotic state during the killing, and the court concluded the evidence clearly established the defense. Having a severe mental disorder does not automatically imply a lack of capacity to know the conduct is morally wrong; the accused must prove this on the balance of probabilities. In Mock's case, his delusional state led him to believe the killing was justified, meeting the NCRMD defense requirements.