R. v. J.A.

R. v. J.A.
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2011-05-27
Neutral citation
2011 SCC 28
Report
[2011] 2 SCR 440
Case number
33684
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 33684
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 440
Date: 20110527
Docket: 33684
Between:
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant
and
J.A.
Respondent
- and -
Attorney General of Canada and Women’s Legal
Education and Action Fund
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 67)
Dissenting Reasons:
(paras. 68 to 145)
McLachlin C.J. (Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. concurring)
Fish J. (Binnie and LeBel JJ. concurring)
R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 440
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
J.A. Respondent
and
Attorney General of Canada and Women’s Legal
Education and Action Fund Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. J.A.
2011 SCC 28
File No.: 33684.
2010: November 8; 2011: May 27.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law — Sexual assault — Consent — Accused and complainant consensually engaging in erotic asphyxiation — Accused anally penetrating complainant during period of unconsciousness — Whether Criminal Code defines consent as requiring conscious, operating mind throughout sexual activity — Whether consent to sexual activity may be given prior to period of unconsciousness — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 265 , 273.1 , 273.2 .
One evening, in the course of sexual relations, J.A. placed his hands around the throat of his long-term partner K.D. and choked her until she was unconscious. At trial, K.D. estimated that she was unconscious for “less than three minutes”. She testified that she consented to J.A. choking her, and understood that she might lose consciousness. She stated that she and J.A. had experimented with erotic asphyxiation, and that she had lost consciousness before. When K.D. regained consciousness, her hands were tied behind her back, and J.A. was inserting a dildo into her anus. K.D. gave conflicting testimony about whether this was the first time J.A. had inserted a dildo into her anus. J.A. removed the dildo ten seconds after she regained consciousness. The two then had vaginal intercourse. When they finished, J.A. cut K.D.’s hands loose.
K.D. made a complaint to the police two months later and stated that while she consented to the choking, she had not consented to the sexual activity that had occurred. She later recanted her allegation, claiming that she made the complaint because J.A. threatened to seek sole custody of their young son. The trial judge convicted J.A. of sexual assault. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and dismissed the charges against J.A.
Held (Binnie, LeBel and Fish JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed and the respondent’s conviction for sexual assault restored.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.: The issue to resolve in this appeal is whether a person can perform sexual acts on an unconscious person if the person consented to those acts in advance of being rendered unconscious. Parliament has defined consent in a way that requires the complainant to be conscious throughout the sexual activity in question. Parliament’s definition of consent does not extend to advance consent to sexual acts committed while the complainant is unconscious. The legislation requires ongoing, conscious consent to ensure that women and men are not the victims of sexual exploitation, and to ensure that individuals engaging in sexual activity are capable of asking their partners to stop at any point.
This definition of consent is in harmony with the provisions of the Criminal Code and their underlying policies and is also consistent with the tenor of the jurisprudence of this Court. The jurisprudence has consistently interpreted consent as requiring a conscious, operating mind, capable of granting, revoking or withholding consent to each and every sexual act. The jurisprudence also establishes that there is no substitute for the complainant’s actual consent to the sexual activity at the time it occurred. It is not sufficient for the accused to have believed the complainant was consenting: he must also take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, and must believe that the complainant communicated her consent to engage in the sexual activity in question. This is impossible if the complainant is unconscious.
The argument that advance consent equals actual consent because the complainant cannot change her mind after being rendered unconscious runs contrary to this Court’s conclusion in R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, that the only relevant period for ascertaining whether the complainant consented under the Criminal Code is while the touching is occurring. When the complainant loses consciousness, she loses the ability to either oppose or consent to the sexual activity that occurs. Finding that such a person is consenting would effectively negate the right of the complainant to change her mind at any point in the sexual encounter.
In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it would be inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions to the concept of consent when doing so would undermine Parliament’s choice. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases and has proved to be of great value in combating stereotypes that have historically existed. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.
Per Binnie, LeBel and Fish JJ. (dissenting): It is a fundamental principle of the law governing sexual assault in Canada that no means “no” and only yes means “yes”. In this case, K.D. said yes, not no. She engaged with J.A. in sexual activity to which she had freely consented in advance, while conscious. To convict J.A. of sexual assault in these circumstances is unwarranted as a matter of statutory interpretation, prior decisions of the Court, or considerations of policy. And it is wrong on the facts of this case.
The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding consent to sexual contact and the case law were intended to protect women against abuse by others. They aim to safeguard and enhance the sexual autonomy of women, and not to make choices for them.
It is a well‑established principle that the complainant’s genuine consent precludes a finding of sexual assault. There is nothing in the Criminal Code that indicates that Parliament has considered or adopted a statutory exception to this principle which would vitiate consent to unconscious sexual activity. Indeed, the wording of s. 273.1(2) (e) of the Criminal Code suggests that the complainant’s consent can be given in advance, as it was in this case, and remains operative unless and until it is subsequently revoked. Upon regaining consciousness, K.D. did not revoke her prior consent to the sexual conduct in issue — which was then still ongoing. And it has not been suggested that she had earlier revoked her consent by words or conduct, or even in her own mind.
A person cannot, while unconscious, consent or revoke consent. However, it hardly follows that consenting adults cannot, as a matter of law, willingly and consciously agree to engage in a sexual practice involving transitory unconsciousness — on the ground that, during the brief period of that consensually induced mental state, they will be unable to consent to doing what they have already consented to do. There is no factual or legal basis for holding that the complainant’s prior consent, otherwise operative throughout, was temporarily rendered inoperative during the few minutes of her voluntary unconsciousness. It was not suspended by the fact that she had rendered herself incapable of revoking the consent she had chosen, freely and consciously, not to revoke either immediately before or immediately after the brief interval of her unconsciousness. The complainant’s prior consent to the activity in question constituted a valid consent only to the contemplated activity. In the absence of any evidence that J.A.’s conduct exceeded the scope of the complainant’s consent, or caused her bodily harm that would vitiate her consent at common law, there is no basis in the provisions of the Criminal Code for concluding that the complainant’s consent in fact was not a valid consent in law.
Cases Cited
By McLachlin C.J.
Applied: R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; referred to: Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; R. v. Esau, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 777; R. v. Humphrey (2001), 143 O.A.C. 151; R. v. M. (M.L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836; Pappajohn v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; R. v. Osvath (1996), 46 C.R. (4th) 124; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76.
By Fish J. (dissenting)
R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; R. v. Keegstra, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; R. v. Cuerrier, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; R. v. Carson (2004), 185 C.C.C. (3d) 541; R. v. Paice, 2005 SCC 22, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 339; R. v. Ashlee, 2006 ABCA 244, 61 Alta. L.R. (4th) 226.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault), Bill C-49, 3rd Sess., 34th Parl., 1991 (assented to June 23, 1992), S.C. 1992, c. 38.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 45 , 265 , 271(1) , 273.1 , 273.2 , 693(1) (a).
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (U.K.), 2003, c. 42, s. 75.
Authors Cited
Canada. House of Commons. House of Commons Debates, vol. VIII, 3rd Sess., 34th Parl., April 8, 1992, p. 9507.
Canada. House of Commons. House of Commons Debates, vol. IX, 3rd Sess., 34th Parl., June 15, 1992, p. 12045.
Card, Richard. Sexual Offences: The New Law. Bristol, England: Jordans, 2004.
Fletcher, George P. Basic Concepts of Legal Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Stewart, Hamish C. Sexual Offences in Canadian Law. Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 2004 (loose-leaf updated August 2010, release 7).
Stuart, Don. Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise, 5th ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Thomson Carswell, 2007.
Tanovich, David M. “Criminalizing Sex At The Margins” (2010), 74 C.R. (6th) 86.
United Kingdom. House of Commons. Home Affairs Committee. Sexual Offences Bill: Fifth Report of Session 2002‑03, HC 639. London: Stationery Office, 2003.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Simmons, Juriansz and LaForme JJ.A.), 2010 ONCA 226, 100 O.R. (3d) 676, 253 C.C.C. (3d) 153, 74 C.R. (6th) 51, 260 O.A.C. 248, [2010] O.J. No. 1202 (QL), 2010 CarswellOnt 1739, setting aside the accused’s conviction for sexual assault. Appeal allowed, Binnie, LeBel and Fish JJ. dissenting.
Christine Bartlett‑Hughes, for the appellant.
Howard L. Krongold and Matthew C. Webber, for the respondent.
James C. Martin, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Susan Chapman and Elizabeth Sheehy, for the intervener the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund.
The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. was delivered by
[1] The Chief Justice — It is a fundamental principle of Canadian law that a person is entitled to refuse sexual contact. From this, it follows that sexual acts performed without consent and without an honest belief in consent constitute the crime of sexual assault. The issue raised by this appeal is whether a person can perform sexual acts on an unconscious person if the person consented to those acts in advance of being rendered unconscious.
[2] The Crown argues that consent in advance of being rendered unconscious does not change the fact that the person, while unconscious, does not have an operating mind and is therefore incapable of consenting to sexual acts performed on her while unconscious. It argues that this is what the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , requires, and that to hold otherwise would be to condone non-consensual sex and sexual exploitation. The respondent, J.A., on the other hand, argues that he may engage in sexual activity with an unconscious person, provided he does not exceed the bounds of what the unconscious person expected. To hold otherwise, the respondent says, is to criminalize benign and essentially consensual sexual activity.
[3] Our task on this appeal is to determine whether the Criminal Code defines consent as requiring a conscious, operating mind throughout the sexual activity. I conclude that the Code makes it clear that an individual must be conscious throughout the sexual activity in order to provide the requisite consent. Parliament requires ongoing, conscious consent to ensure that women and men are not the victims of sexual exploitation, and to ensure that individuals engaging in sexual activity are capable of asking their partners to stop at any point. I would therefore allow the appeal and restore the conviction of the respondent.
I. Facts
[4] On May 22, 2007, the respondent J.A. and his long-time partner K.D. spent an evening together at home. While watching a movie on the couch, they started to kiss and engage in foreplay. After some time, they went upstairs to their bedroom and became more intimate. They both undressed, and started kissing on the bed.
[5] While K.D. was lying on her back, J.A. placed his hands around her throat and choked her until she was unconscious. At trial, K.D. estimated that she was unconscious for “less than three minutes”. She testified that she consented to J.A. choking her, and understood that she might lose consciousness. She stated that she and J.A. had experimented with erotic asphyxiation, and that she had lost consciousness before.
[6] When K.D. regained consciousness, she was on her knees at the edge of the bed with her hands tied behind her back, and J.A. was inserting a dildo into her anus. K.D. gave conflicting testimony about whether this was the first time J.A. had inserted a dildo into her anus. During her examination in chief, she stated that this was a first, and initially maintained this answer during cross-examination by defence counsel:
[Mr. Goldstein]: In terms of having what you referred to as a dildo inserted -- you had said in your butt, is that something that had happened before?
[K.D.]: No, we hadn’t done that. We discussed the possibility of it. At the moment I just went with it in the spirit of experimentation.
[7] However, when confronted with the transcript of her testimony at J.A.’s bail hearing, K.D. changed her answer:
[K.D.]: . . . we had tried it one time prior.
[Mr. Goldstein]: Okay. . . .
[K.D.]: Somewhat of a drunken evening a while ago. I do apologize.
[8] K.D. testified that J.A. removed the dildo ten seconds after she regained consciousness. The two then had vaginal intercourse. When they had finished, J.A. cut K.D.’s hands loose.
[9] K.D. made a complaint to the police on July 11. In a videotaped statement, she told the police that she had not consented to the sexual activity that had occurred. She later recanted her allegation, and claimed that she made a false complaint to the police because J.A. had threatened to seek sole custody of their two-year-old son. J.A. was charged with aggravated assault, sexual assault, attempting to render the complainant unconscious in order to sexually assault her, and with breaching his probation order.
II. Judicial History
A. Ontario Court of Justice, 2008 ONCJ 195 (CanLII)
[10] K.D. was the only witness at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.
[11] Nicholas J. found J.A. not guilty of aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm. She concluded that K.D. had consented to being choked into unconsciousness. The trial judge also held that K.D. did not suffer bodily harm since the unconsciousness that she experienced was only transient. Nicholas J. found that the complainant consented to being choked.
[12] However, Nicholas J. found J.A. guilty of sexual assault. She described K.D.’s conflicting testimony as “typical . . . of a recanting complainant in a domestic matter” (para. 8). She concluded that K.D. had not consented to the insertion of the dildo, and that this was the first time that the couple had engaged in this sexual activity (para. 41).
[13] In the alternative, the trial judge held that K.D. could not “legally consent to sexual activity that takes place when she is unconscious” (para. 45).
[14] J.A. was also found guilty of breaching his probation order.
B. Ontario Court of Appeal, 2010 ONCA 226, 100 O.R. (3d) 676
[15] J.A. successfully appealed his convictions to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The court unanimously held that there was insufficient evidence at trial to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that K.D. did not consent to the insertion of the dildo in advance of unconsciousness (Simmons J.A., at para. 55; LaForme J.A., at para. 114). The court split on whether such consent would be legally valid.
[16] On behalf of the majority, Simmons J.A. held that individuals could consent in advance to sexual activity that occurs while they are unconscious. She emphasized that the Crown must prove the absence of consent in order to establish the actus reus of sexual assault. She reasoned that if an individual consents in advance to sexual activity taking place while she is unconscious, and never changes her mind, “[t]he only state of mind ever experienced by the person is that of consent” (para. 77).
[17] The majority also rejected the Crown’s argument that consent in this case was vitiated by the intentional infliction of bodily harm. Simmons J.A. agreed with the Crown that the trial judge had committed an error of law in her analysis of bodily harm, but held that bodily harm could not be relied upon to vitiate consent in the case of sexual assault simpliciter.
[18] LaForme J.A. dissented, holding that the definition of consent for the purposes of sexual assault required the individual to have an active mind throughout the sexual activity. He based his conclusion on this Court’s decision in R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, stating that this decision “conclusively establishes that a prior consent is not effective as a matter of law because unconsciousness deprives the person consenting of the ability to express consent or know whether they are consenting at the time the sexual activity occurs” (para. 117).
[19] LaForme J.A. also held that the Criminal Code defined consent as an ongoing state of mind, and that consent ceases “as soon as the complainant falls unconscious and is incapable of consenting” (para. 123). He noted that the Criminal Code allowed individuals to revoke their consent at any time during the sexual activity.
[20] LaForme J.A. did not discuss whether bodily harm could vitiate consent in the case of sexual assault simpliciter. However, he did state that he only disagreed with Simmons J.A.’s discussion of unconscious consent (para. 113).
III. Analysis
A. Issue on Appeal
[21] The only question before this Court is whether consent for the purposes of sexual assault requires the complainant to be conscious throughout the sexual activity. This is because the Crown appeals to this Court as of right on the basis of “any question of law on which a judge of the court of appeal dissents”: Criminal Code, s. 693(1) (a). Accordingly, whether the complainant consented in fact or suffered bodily harm are not at issue; nor is the Court of Appeal’s holding that, for reasons of procedural fairness, the Crown in this case cannot rely on bodily harm to vitiate consent since it did not formally allege that bodily harm occurred. Since the issue of bodily harm is not before this Court, I take no position on whether or in which circumstances individuals may consent to bodily harm during sexual activity. In my view, it would be inappropriate to decide the matter without the benefit of submissions from interested groups.
B. Framework of Sexual Assault
[22] Before turning to the issue in this case, it is useful to consider the framework of the law of sexual assault.
[23] A conviction for sexual assault under s. 271(1) of the Criminal Code requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence. A person commits the actus reus if he touches another person in a sexual way without her consent. Consent for this purpose is actual subjective consent in the mind of the complainant at the time of the sexual activity in question: Ewanchuk. As discussed below, the Criminal Code, s. 273.1(2) , limits this definition by stipulating circumstances where consent is not obtained.
[24] A person has the required mental state, or mens rea of the offence, when he or she knew that the complainant was not consenting to the sexual act in question, or was reckless or wilfully blind to the absence of consent. The accused may raise the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent if he believed that the complainant communicated consent to engage in the sexual activity. However, as discussed below, ss. 273.1(2) and 273.2 limit the cases in which the accused may rely on this defence. For instance, the accused cannot argue that he misinterpreted the complainant saying “no” as meaning “yes” (Ewanchuk, at para. 51).
[25] The issue in this case is whether the complainant consented, which is relevant to the actus reus; the Crown must prove the absence of consent to fulfill the requirements of the wrongful act. However, the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to the mens rea defence of honest but mistaken belief also shed light on the issue of whether consent requires the complainant to have been conscious throughout the duration of the sexual activity.
[26] The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code are ss. 265 , 273.1 and 273.2 .
[27] The Criminal Code defines sexual assault as an assault that is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature. Section 265 provides that:
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
. . .
[28] Parliament has enacted provisions that specifically define consent for the purpose of sexual assault. In particular, s. 273.1 establishes as follows:
273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.
(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as limiting the circumstances in which no consent is obtained.
[29] The definition of consent for the purposes of sexual assault is found in s. 273.1(1). In order to clarify this broad definition, Parliament provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which no consent is obtained in s. 273.1(2) . Section 273.1(3) authorizes the courts to identify additional cases in which no consent is obtained, in a manner consistent with the policies underlying the provisions of the Criminal Code .
[30] The defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was recognized and limited by Parliament in s. 273.2 of the Criminal Code :
273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where
(a) the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s
(i) self-induced intoxication, or
(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or
(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.
C. The Concept of Consent Under the Criminal Code
[31] The foregoing provisions of the Criminal Code indicate that Parliament viewed consent as the conscious agreement of the complainant to engage in every sexual act in a particular encounter.
[32] The proper approach to statutory interpretation was summarized in Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601: “The interpretation of a statutory provision must be made according to a textual, contextual and purposive analysis to find a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a whole.” The Court emphasized that while “[t]he relative effects of ordinary meaning, context and purpose on the interpretive process may vary, . . . in all cases the court must seek to read the provisions of an Act as a harmonious whole” (para. 10).
[33] It follows that we must seek to interpret the provisions that deal with consent in a harmonious way. Applying this approach, we see that Parliament defined consent in a way that requires the complainant to be conscious throughout the sexual activity in question. The issue is not whether the Court should identify a new exception that vitiates consent to sexual activity while unconscious (see reasons of Fish J., at para. 95), but whether an unconscious person can qualify as consenting under Parliament’s definition.
[34] Consent for the purposes of sexual assault is defined in s. 273.1(1) as “the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question”. This suggests that the consent of the complainant must be specifically directed to each and every sexual act, negating the argument that broad advance consent is what Parliament had in mind. As discussed below, this Court has also interpreted this provision as requiring the complainant to consent to the activity “at the time it occur[s]” (Ewanchuk, at para. 26).
[35] Section 273.1(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which no consent is obtained. These examples shed further light on Parliament’s understanding of consent.
[36] Section 273.1(2) (b) provides that no consent is obtained if “the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity”. Parliament was concerned that sexual acts might be perpetrated on persons who do not have the mental capacity to give meaningful consent. This might be because of mental impairment. It also might arise from unconsciousness: see R. v. Esau, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 777; R. v. Humphrey (2001), 143 O.A.C. 151, at para. 56, per Charron J.A. (as she then was). It follows that Parliament intended consent to mean the conscious consent of an operating mind.
[37] The provisions of the Criminal Code that relate to the mens rea of sexual assault confirm that individuals must be conscious throughout the sexual activity. Before considering these provisions, however, it is important to keep in mind the differences between the meaning of consent under the actus reus and under the mens rea: Ewanchuk, at paras. 48-49. Under the mens rea defence, the issue is whether the accused believed that the complainant communicated consent. Conversely, the only question for the actus reus is whether the complainant was subjectively consenting in her mind. The complainant is not required to express her lack of consent or her revocation of consent for the actus reus to be established.
[38] With this caution in mind, I come to the three provisions that relate to the mens rea that are relevant to the issue in this case: s. 273.1(2) (d), s. 273.1(2) (e) and s. 273.2 (b).
[39] Section 273.1(2) (d) provides that there can be no consent if the “complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity”. Since this provision refers to the expression of consent, it is clear that it can only apply to the accused’s mens rea. The point here is the linking of lack of consent to any “activity”. This suggests a present, ongoing conception of consent, rather than advance consent to a suite of activities.
[40] Section 273.1(2) (e) establishes that it is an error of law for the accused to believe that the complainant is still consenting after she “expresses . . . a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity”. Since this provision refers to the expression of consent, it is clear that it can only apply to the accused’s mens rea. Nonetheless, it indicates that Parliament wanted people to be capable of revoking their consent at any time during the sexual activity. This in turn supports the view that Parliament viewed consent as the product of a conscious mind, since a person who has been rendered unconscious cannot revoke her consent. As a result, the protection afforded by s. 273.1(2) (e) would not be available to her.
[41] According to my colleague, Fish J., s. 273.1(2) (e) “suggests that the complainant’s consent can be given in advance, and remains operative unless and until it is subsequently revoked” (para. 104 (emphasis in original)). With respect, I cannot accept this interpretation. The provision in question establishes that the accused must halt all sexual contact once the complainant expresses that she no longer consents. This does not mean that a failure to tell the accused to stop means that the complainant must have been consenting. As this Court has repeatedly held, the complainant is not required to express her lack of consent for the actus reus to be established. Rather, the question is whether the complainant subjectively consented in her mind: Ewanchuk; R. v. M. (M.L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 3.
[42] Section 273.2 sheds further light on Parliament’s conception of consent. Section 273.2 (b) states that a person wishing to avail himself of the mens rea defence must not only believe that the complainant communicated her consent (or in French, “l’accusé croyait que le plaignant avait consenti” (s. 273.2 )), but must also have taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether she “was consenting” to engage in the sexual activity in question at the time it occurred. How can one take reasonable steps to ascertain whether a person is consenting to sexual activity while it is occurring if that person is unconscious? Once again, the provision is grounded in the assumption that the complainant must consciously consent to each and every sexual act. Further, by requiring the accused to take reasonable steps to ensure that the complainant “was consenting”, Parliament has indicated that the consent of the complainant must be an ongoing state of mind.
[43] The question in this case is whether Parliament defined consent in a way that extends to advance consent to sexual acts committed while the complainant is unconscious. In my view, it did not. J.A.’s contention that advance consent can be given to sexual acts taking place during unconsciousness is not in harmony with the provisions of the Code and their underlying policies. These provisions indicate that Parliament viewed consent as requiring a “capable” or operating mind, able to evaluate each and every sexual act committed. To hold otherwise runs counter to Parliament’s clear intent that a person has the right to consent to particular acts and to revoke her consent at any time. Reading these provisions together, I cannot accept the respondent’s contention that an individual may consent in advance to sexual activity taking place while she is unconscious.
D. The Concept of Consent in the Jurisprudence
[44] The jurisprudence has consistently interpreted consent as requiring a conscious, operating mind, capable of granting, revoking or withholding consent to each and every sexual act. While the issue of whether advance consent can suffice to justify future sexual acts has not come before this Court prior to this case, the tenor of the jurisprudence undermines this concept of consent.
[45] As held by Major J. in Ewanchuk, “[t]he absence of consent . . . is subjective and determined by reference to the complainant’s subjective internal state of mind towards the touching, at the time it occurred” (para. 26 (emphasis added)). The trier of fact must determine what was going on in the mind of the complainant in response to the touching. The majority repeatedly underlined that the focus is on the complainant’s “state of mind”: paras. 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34 and 48; see also R. v. Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, at para. 16, referring to the consent of the complainant as a “mental state” (per L’Heureux-Dubé J.). Moreover, as noted above, the complainant is not required to express her lack of consent: M. (M.L.). Rather, the absence of consent is established if the complainant was not experiencing the state of mind of consent while the sexual activity was occurring.
[46] The only relevant period of time for the complainant’s consent is while the touching is occurring: Ewanchuk, at para. 26. The complainant’s views towards the touching before or after are not directly relevant. An offence has not occurred if the complainant consents at the time but later changes her mind (absent grounds for vitiating consent). Conversely, the actus reus has been committed if the complainant was not consenting in her mind while the touching took place, even if she expressed her consent before or after the fact.
[47] The jurisprudence of this Court also establishes that there is no substitute for the complainant’s actual consent to the sexual activity at the time it occurred. It is not open to the defendant to argue that the complainant’s consent was implied by the circumstances, or by the relationship between the accused and the complainant. There is no defence of implied consent to sexual assault: Ewanchuk, at para. 31.
[48] The cases on the mens rea defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent take the same view. At common law, this was a standard defence of mistake of fact: the accused was not guilty if he honestly believed a state of facts, which, if true, would have rendered his conduct lawful: Pappajohn v. The Queen, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120, at pp. 134 and 139. In Ewanchuk, this Court held that it is not sufficient for the accused to have believed that the complainant was subjectively consenting in her mind: “In order to cloak the accused’s actions in moral innocence, the evidence must show that he believed that the complainant communicated consent to engage in the sexual activity in question” (para. 46 (emphasis in original)). See also Park, at para. 39 (per L’Heureux-Dubé J.). It thus is not sufficient for the accused to have believed the complainant was consenting: he must also take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, and must believe that the complainant communicated her consent to engage in the sexual activity in question. This is impossible if the complainant is unconscious.
[49] The respondent argues that my dissenting reasons in Esau suggest that an individual may consent while unconscious for purposes of the actus reus of the offence. The issue in that case was whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief was available where the complainant asserted that she was unconscious due to drunkenness at the time of the sexual activity. The majority of the Court, per Major J., held that the evidence sufficed to raise a basis for the defence. My dissenting reasons argued that the defence did not arise because an unconscious complainant “lacks the capacity to communicate a voluntary decision to consent. . . . To put it another way, the necessary (but not sufficient) condition of consent — the capacity to communicate agreement — is absent” (para. 73). I further stated:
The hypothetical case of a complainant giving advance consent to sexual contact before becoming unconscious does not constitute an exception. Consent can be revoked at any time. The person who assaults an unconscious woman cannot know whether, were she conscious, she would revoke the earlier consent. He therefore takes the risk that she may later claim she was assaulted without consent. [ibid.]
[50] Simmons J.A. read this passage as supporting the view that an individual may consent while unconscious (para. 82). However, the point of the passage is simply to cast doubt on whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief can arise with respect to an unconscious complainant, assuming (without deciding) that the actus reus could be made out. The passage thus does not support the view that advance consent prior to unconsciousness can establish consent for purposes of the actus reus of the offence.
E. The Arguments to the Contrary
[51] The issue in this case relates only to the actus reus of sexual assault. The question is whether advance consent can establish consent to sexual activity committed on a person who has been rendered unconscious. The foregoing discussion of the provisions of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence suggests that the answer to this question is no. However, before concluding on the matter, we must examine the arguments put against this conclusion.
[52] The first argument is that advance consent equals actual consent because the complainant cannot change her mind after being rendered unconscious. Simmons J.A. accepted this argument: “Where a person consents in advance to sexual activity expected to occur while unconscious and does not change their mind, I fail to see how the Crown can prove lack of consent. The only state of mind ever experienced by the person is that of consent” (para. 77).
[53] This argument runs contrary, however, to this Court’s conclusion in Ewanchuk that the only relevant period for ascertaining whether the complainant consented under the Criminal Code is while the touching is occurring (para. 26). When the complainant loses consciousness, she loses the ability to either oppose or consent to the sexual activity that occurs. Finding that such a person is consenting would effectively negate the right of the complainant to change her mind at any point in the sexual encounter.
[54] The second argument is that the law should carve out an exception to the general requirement of conscious, ongoing consent to sexual contact, because this is required to deal with the special concerns unconsciousness raises.
[55] J.A. submits that this is what the law has done in the medical field, where the common law recognizes that doctors may perform surgery on unconscious patients. This argument fails to appreciate, however, that consent functions differently in different contexts: G. P. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Legal Thought (1996), at p. 112. A number of considerations make consent to sexual activity different from consent in other contexts such as medical interventions, and property transactions. Parliament has indicated that the notion of consent for sexual assault is distinc