R. v. Edgar, 2016 ONCA 120:
[10] To commit a sexual assault, it was not necessary for the appellant to touch or even verbally threaten the complainant. A person's act or gesture, without words, force or any physical contact, can constitute a threat to apply force of a sexual nature, if it intentionally creates in another person an apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact that affronts the person's sexual integrity. Coupled with a present ability to carry out the threat, this can amount to a sexual assault. See Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 265(1)(b) and (2); R. v. Cadden (1989), 48 C.C.C. (3d) 122 (B.C.C.A.); and R. v. Johnson, 2006 CanLII 37519 (Ont. S.C.).
4 comments:
So whatever a woman decides bothers her is sexual assault?!
@ Bruce McMicking
No. Whatever a court decides complies with the provisions of the law would be a sexual assault.
i hope this idiotic ruling is over turned.
.. very interesting precedent, thank you. When you think about it.. it makes a lot of sense. Thus, an immediate or implied threat of sexual assault.. is in itself an assault.. just as bullying is essentially an assault.. direct implied threat ..Wonder whather that is weighing on the Judge pondering the Ghomeshi witness testimonies ?
Post a Comment