R. v. Jobidon
Encyclopedia
R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 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".
Jobidon waited outside until Haggart left to continue the fight. His first punch was with such force that Haggart was knocked unconscious. Still, Jobidon continued to punch him in the head. Haggart was taken to a hospital and later died of severe contusions to the head. Jobidon was charged with manslaughter.
At trial the judge found that though Jobidon did not intend to kill him, the possibility of serious injury was foreseeable. Jobidon successfully argued that Haggart had consented to the fight, and so he was acquitted. The Court of Appeal overturned the verdict and substituted a conviction for manslaughter.
The principal issue was whether absence of consent is a material element which must be proven by the Crown in all cases of assault or whether there are common law limitations which restrict or negate the legal effectiveness of consent in certain types of cases.
Justice Sopinka, in concurring reasons that agreed with the result but not with the majority's reasoning, held that the majority was expanding the scope of the criminal provision beyond what was intended by Parliament. In the current situation, Sopinka found that the beating became so severe that it would be impossible for Haggart to consent to it.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is 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, and its decisions...
decision where the Court held that consent
Consent
Consent refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration.- Types of consent :*Implied consent is a controversial form of consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person's actions and the facts and...
cannot be used as a defence for a criminal act such as assault
Assault
In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more...
which may cause "serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm".
Background
In September 1986, Rodney Haggart was celebrating his engagement in hotel bar near Sudbury, Ontario. Haggart had an exchange of angry words with Jules Jobidon, a young man at the bar with his brother. Haggart challenged him to a fight in the bar but it was soon broken up. They both agreed that the fight was not over.Jobidon waited outside until Haggart left to continue the fight. His first punch was with such force that Haggart was knocked unconscious. Still, Jobidon continued to punch him in the head. Haggart was taken to a hospital and later died of severe contusions to the head. Jobidon was charged with manslaughter.
At trial the judge found that though Jobidon did not intend to kill him, the possibility of serious injury was foreseeable. Jobidon successfully argued that Haggart had consented to the fight, and so he was acquitted. The Court of Appeal overturned the verdict and substituted a conviction for manslaughter.
The principal issue was whether absence of consent is a material element which must be proven by the Crown in all cases of assault or whether there are common law limitations which restrict or negate the legal effectiveness of consent in certain types of cases.
Reasons of the Court
Justice Gonthier, writing for the majority, argued that the criminal law has a "paternalistic" dimension which attempts to ensure that all "citizens treat each other humanely and with respect". Nevertheless, consent would be a valid defence where the harm was trivial or where it is part of a socially valuable activity such as sports.Justice Sopinka, in concurring reasons that agreed with the result but not with the majority's reasoning, held that the majority was expanding the scope of the criminal provision beyond what was intended by Parliament. In the current situation, Sopinka found that the beating became so severe that it would be impossible for Haggart to consent to it.