R v JA

Last updated
R v JA

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: November 8, 2010
Judgment: May 27, 2011
Full case nameHer Majesty The Queen v JA
Citations 2011 SCC 28
Docket No. 33684
Prior history Judgment for the defendant in the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Ruling Appeal allowed and conviction entered
Holding
A person can only legally consent to sexual activity if they have an operating mind during the sexual activity in question. Therefore, performing sexual activity on an unconscious person is a criminal offence whether or not the unconscious person consented in advance.
Court Membership
Reasons given
Majority McLachlin C.J. (paras. 1–67), joined by Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ.
Dissent Fish J. (paras. 68–145), joined by Binnie and LeBel JJ.

R v JA 2011 SCC 28 is a criminal law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding consent in cases of sexual assaults. The court found that a person can only consent to sexual activity if they are conscious throughout that activity. If a person becomes unconscious during the sexual activity, then they legally cannot consent, whether or not they consented earlier. In addition to the two parties (J.A. and the Attorney General of Ontario), the Court heard from two interveners: the Attorney General of Canada and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF).

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In criminal law, consent may be used as an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability for what was done.

Contents

Background

Alleged offence

On May 27, 2007, J.A. and his long-term partner, K.D., began having consensual sexual activity together. During the sexual activity, K.D. consented for J.A. to choke her as part of the sexual activity. K.D. lost consciousness for about three minutes, and she understood this might happen when she consented to being choked.

Erotic asphyxiation is the intentional restriction of oxygen to the brain for the purposes of sexual arousal. The term autoerotic asphyxiation is used when the act is done by a person to him- or herself. Colloquially, a person engaging in the activity is sometimes called a gasper.

While K.D. was unconscious, J.A. tied K.D. up and performed additional sexual acts on her. In her testimony, K.D. was not clear whether she knew or consented to that sexual activity J.A. performed on her while she was unconscious. After K.D. regained consciousness, she and J.A. continued having consensual sexual activity.

On July 11, 2007, K.D. made a complaint to the police, saying that the activity was not consensual, although she later recanted her statement. J.A. was charged with aggravated assault, sexual assault, attempting to render a person unconscious in order to sexually assault them, and breaching a probation order.

Police Law enforcement body

The police are a constituted body of persons empowered by a state to enforce the law, to protect the lives, liberty and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder. Their powers include the power of arrest and the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with the police forces of a sovereign state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. Police forces are often defined as being separate from the military and other organizations involved in the defense of the state against foreign aggressors; however, gendarmerie are military units charged with civil policing. Police forces are usually public sector services, funded through taxes.

An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court instead of serving time in prison.

Trial

At trial, the trial judge found that K.D. had consented to being choked into unconsciousness. Although the court found that this was bodily harm, the trial judge found that it was too transient to amount to bodily harm. As a result, the judge acquitted J.A. of aggravated assault and choking K.D. However, the trial judge found either K.D. did not consent to the sexual activity, or if she did, then she could not legally consent to sexual activity taking place while she was unconscious. J.A. was found guilty of sexual assault and breaching his probation order.

Appeal

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario was unanimous that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that K.D. did not consent to the sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario is an appellate court in Ontario that is based at historic Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto.

In addition, the majority found that persons can consent to sexual activity to take place after they are rendered unconscious. The majority also concluded that while the trial judge erred and that there was, in fact, bodily harm, they ruled that bodily harm cannot vitiate consent on a charge of only sexual assault.

The dissenting judge found that consent for the purpose of sexual assault required an active mind during the sexual activity in question.

Reasons of the court

The Supreme Court of Canada only ruled on the issue of whether consent for the purpose of sexual assault requires an active mind during the sexual activity in question.

Majority

The majority judgment was given by McLachlin C.J.

The majority reviewed the definition of consent for sexual assaults found in section 273.1 of the Criminal Code, [1] and concluded that: "Parliament viewed consent as the conscious agreement of the complainant to engage in every sexual act in a particular encounter." Ultimately, the majority concluded that Parliament intended for a person to have an active mind during the sexual activity in question.

<i>Criminal Code</i> (Canada)

The Criminal Code is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law". Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the sole jurisdiction of Parliament over criminal law in Canada.

Parliament of Canada the federal legislative branch of Canada

The Parliament of Canada is the federal legislature of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the national capital. The body consists of the Canadian monarch, represented by a viceroy, the Governor General; an upper house, the Senate; and a lower house, the House of Commons. Each element has its own officers and organization. By constitutional convention, the House of Commons is dominant, with the Senate and monarch rarely opposing its will. The Senate reviews legislation from a less partisan standpoint and the monarch or viceroy provides royal assent to make bills into law.

In coming to their conclusion, the majority noted the following:

  1. Consent in advance is not a defense, as a person must be able to withdraw their consent during the sexual activity in question.
  2. The rule only applies to consent in cases of sexual assault.
  3. Although this may lead to an odd interpretation, such as one partner kissing the other partner while they are asleep, the majority found that this was Parliament's intention, and it cannot be overruled without a constitutional challenge. (See Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms#Interpretation and enforcement.)

As a result, J.A. was guilty of sexual assault.

Dissent

The dissenting judgment was given by Fish J.

The dissent found a number of problems with the majority's interpretation:

  1. It would deprive women of their freedom to engage in sexual activity that does not result in bodily harm.
  2. It would mean that cohabiting partners, including spouses, risk having one partner commit a sexual assault when that partner kisses or caresses their sleeping partner, even with that sleeping partner's prior express consent.

The dissent found that absent a clear prohibition in the Criminal Code, a conscious person can consent in advance to sexual activity to take place while they are unconscious, provided there is no bodily harm, and provided the sexual activity did not go beyond what was agreed to.

Critical review

The case drew much attention from the media and legal analysts. [2] [3] [4]

Elizabeth Sheehy, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who represented LEAF at the Supreme Court, said that the decision protects women who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation because they are asleep, medicated, have episodic disabilities, or are drunk. Sheehy noted that the decision upheld that "unconscious women are not sexually available". [2] [4] Melanie Randall, who drafted some of the legal arguments for LEAF, said that the decision does not change the law and merely reaffirms the law that has been in place since 1983. [5]

Martha Shaffer, a law professor at the University of Toronto, said that the Criminal Code was explicit that a person could not consent if they were unconscious, but it was not expressly clear whether prior consent could be given. "Now the law is clear: The notion that you give prior consent is not recognized in Canadian law", Shaffer said. [5]

Rosie DiManno, a columnist with the Toronto Star , criticized the decision, saying that it "infantilizes" women. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Consensual crime

A consensual crime is a public-order crime that involves more than one participant, all of whom give their consent as willing participants in an activity that is unlawful. Legislative bodies and interest groups sometimes rationalize the criminalization of consensual activity because they feel it offends cultural norms, or because one of the parties to the activity is considered a "victim" despite their informed consent.

<i>R v Park</i>

R v Park [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, is a Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with the mistaken belief defence – i.e. that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that he had consent to engage in sexual relations with the complainant – and the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to sexual assault.

Operation Spanner was the name of an operation carried out by police in the United Kingdom city of Manchester in 1987, as a result of which a group of homosexual men were convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for their involvement in consensual sadomasochism over a ten-year period.

Criminal transmission of HIV is the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This is often conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and often, as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not include a realistic means of transmission. Some countries or jurisdictions, including some areas of the U.S., have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission or exposure, charging those accused with criminal transmission of HIV. Others, including the United Kingdom, charge the accused under existing laws with such crimes as murder, fraud (Canada), manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault.

Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex.

Assault causing bodily harm is a statutory offence of assault in Canada with aggravating factors. It is committed by anyone who, in committing an assault, causes bodily harm to the complainant. It is the Canadian equivalent to the statutory offence in England and Wales of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In Canada, a consensual fight is not considered an assault, but one cannot consent to an assault causing bodily harm.

R v Brown[1993] UKHL 19, [1994] 1 AC 212 is a House of Lords judgment in which a group of men were convicted for their involvement in consensual sadomasochistic sexual acts over a 10-year period. They were convicted of "unlawful and malicious wounding" and "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" contrary to sections 20 and 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The key issue facing the Court was whether consent was a valid defence to assault in these circumstances, to which the Court answered in the negative.

Johnson Aziga is a Ugandan-born Canadian man formerly residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, notable as the first person to be charged and convicted of first-degree murder in Canada for spreading HIV, after two women whom he had infected without their knowledge died.

<i>R v Cuerrier</i>

R v Cuerrier was a 1998 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV constitutes a prosecutable crime under Canadian law.

<i>R v Labaye</i>

R v Labaye, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728, 2005 SCC 80, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on criminal indecency. The decision upheld consensual group sex and Swinging activities in a club and alleged bawdy-house as being consistent with personal autonomy and liberty. Labaye was accompanied by a sister case, R v Kouri.

<i>R v Kouri</i>

R v Kouri 2005 SCC 81 (CanLII), was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that, along with its sister case R v Labaye, established that harm is the sole defining element of indecency in Canadian criminal law. The case involved a club in which couples engaged in group sex; the club was alleged to be a "common bawdy-house". The acquittal was upheld by the Supreme Court.

<i>R v Handy</i>

R v Handy, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, 2002 SCC 56, is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on similar fact evidence. The Court proposed what is known as the Handy test for determining whether past occurrences that resemble the crime can be admitted as evidence.

<i>R v Jobidon</i>

R v Jobidon, [1991] 2 SCR 714 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that consent cannot be used as a defence for a criminal act such as assault which may cause "serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm".

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

Rape is a type of sexual assault initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, or where the person is under threat or manipulation, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. It is the name of a statutory crime in jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, California, and New York, and is a legal term of art used in the definition of the offence of sexual violation in New Zealand.

Crimes Act 1900

The Crimes Act 1900, is a New South Wales statute that sets out the majority of criminal offences for the state of New South Wales in Australia. Along with the Crimes Act 1914, and the Federal Criminal Code Act 1995, these two pieces of legislation form the majority of criminal law for New South Wales.

Sexual consent

Sexual consent is consent to engage in sexual activity. Sexual activity without consent is considered rape or other sexual assault. In the late 1980s, academic Lois Pineau argued that society must move towards a more communicative model of sexuality so that consent becomes more explicit and clear, objective and layered, with a more comprehensive model than "no means no" or "yes means yes". Many universities have instituted campaigns about consent. Creative campaigns with attention-grabbing slogans and images that market consent can be effective tools to raise awareness of campus sexual assault and related issues.

BDSM and the law

The relationship between BDSM and the law changes significantly from nation to nation. It is entirely dependent on the legal situation in individual countries whether the practice of BDSM has any criminal relevance or legal consequences. Criminalization of consensually implemented BDSM practices is usually not with explicit reference to BDSM, but results from the fact that such behavior as spanking or cuffing someone could be considered a breach of personal rights, which in principle constitutes a criminal offense. In Germany, Netherlands, Japan and Scandinavia, such behavior is legal in principle. In Austria the legal status is not clear, while in Switzerland some BDSM practices can be considered criminal. Spectacular incidents like the US scandal of People v. Jovanovic and the British Operation Spanner demonstrate the degree to which difficult grey areas can pose a problem for the individuals and authorities involved. It is very important to learn the legal status of the right of consent in the judicial statue of the country of resident for the practitioners of BDSM.

References

  1. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 273.1.
  2. 1 2 Mike Blanchfield (27 May 2011). "Woman can't consent to sex while unconscious, Supreme Court rules". The Toronto Star . Retrieved 30 May 2011.
  3. Jill Mahoney and Kirk Makin (27 May 2011). "No consent in unconscious sex case, Supreme Court rules". The Globe and Mail . Retrieved 30 May 2011.
  4. 1 2 Alison Crawford (27 May 2011). "No consent in unconscious sex case: Supreme Court". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . Retrieved 30 May 2011.
  5. 1 2 Kazi Stastna (27 May 2011). "AnalysisSupreme Court decision on sexual consent". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . Retrieved 30 May 2011.
  6. Rosie DiManno (29 May 2011). "DiManno: Supreme Court's consent ruling infantilizes women". Toronto Star . Retrieved 30 May 2011.