R v Thompson
Response or Comment
Offences, Sexual Assault, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Consent
This decision is significant in the HIV+ non-disclosure context: if the approach taken here is adopted more widely, it would in effect reverse an aspect of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, 96 C.R. (6th) 1 (S.C.C.). In that case, the Court dealt with when HIV+ non-disclosure would mean that consent had been vitiated, and therefore that apparently consensual activity was in fact a sexual assault. Specifically, it found that consent would be vitiated by fraud if there was risk of deprivation due to the non-disclosure, and that there would not be a risk of deprivation if the accused had a low viral load and also used a condom.
Stephen Coughlan, "R v Thompson", Case Comment, (2016) 29 C.R. (7th) 393.