Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Pretty damn close actually, and if you think that case wouldn't hold at least some precedent in something arising from the facts here you're completely out to lunch.
|
I'm guessing they got the conviction for sexual assault on a lack of consent to the nature and quality of the act basis (S.265(3) via 273.1(1), specifically S.265(3)(c), "fraud"). She didn't consent to what she thought she was consenting to.
That dude's friend didn't do any assaulting. There was no contact of a sexual nature. He didn't have the sex. You might get him on a s.21 charging of aiding and abetting sexual assault, but I see this as a leap.
I think the most likely charge would be criminal neglience (s.219 - doing anything that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons). Given that a potentially seriously harmful STI could be transmitted as a very probable result, you'd probably have a good case.
The only precedent the case you pointed to could establish is that the Court doesn't like it when you poke holes in condoms.