Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation dives into the complex and controversial case of Barton, which has already made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada once before, only to return after a new trial and conviction. The critical issue on this appeal was whether the Alberta Court of Appeal had effectively created two different categories of consent in Canadian law for sexual assault cases—particularly in situations where there is a foreseeable risk of bodily harm.
Key Points Discussed:
Two Categories of Consent?: Analysis of how the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision could potentially create a double standard in sexual assault law.
Consent and Risk of Bodily Harm: Exploration of the court’s ruling that consent can be vitiated if serious bodily harm is reasonably foreseeable, even before any sexual activity takes place.
Implications for Future Cases: Discussion on how this decision could lead to potential misuse in the criminal justice system, with the risk of false charges of sexual assault based on post-facto decisions.
Why This Case Matters:
This case touches on critical issues of consent, bodily harm, and how the legal system interprets and applies these concepts in sexual assault cases. The Supreme Court of Canada had the chance to provide clarity on the issue of consent when bodily harm is a foreseeable risk, but unfortunately, that opportunity was missed. Now, the legal landscape remains murky, leaving room for further challenges and potential misinterpretations in future cases.
Topics Covered:
Consent and sexual assault law in Canada
Foreseeable bodily harm and its impact on consent
Alberta Court of Appeal’s controversial ruling
The role of the Supreme Court of Canada in clarifying legal standards
