Canada’s Supreme Court Enters the Bedroom – Precedent setting case clouds consent – May 28, 2011 – Cornwall Ontario

Cornwall ON – The Supreme court has entered the Canadian boudoir and ruled on  the type of case that you generally don’t see at the Supreme Court of Canada…or any country.

The ruling determines that you can’t have sex without consent which is an easy one to understand, but it’s where the courts are going with their definition of consent and conditions which most times simply are not able to truly be proven.

In this particular case a women agreed to be choked unconscious as part of consensual sex play, but was apparently upset that she woke up with a foreign object in her bum.   She protested and filed charges against her partner, someone that she apparently had an long term off and on relationship.


In a dissenting opinion, Justice Morris Fish suggested that McLachlin’s approach goes beyond what Parliament intended.

“Notably, it would criminalize kissing or caressing a sleeping partner, however gently and affectionately,” Fish wrote. “Prior consent, or even an explicit request — ‘kiss me before you leave for work’ — would not spare the accused from conviction.”

In a perfect world we know that everyone tells the truth all the time.  Unfortunately none of us live in a perfect world and as most of us have experienced at one point of our lives, break ups and arguments can sometimes change perspectives.

I bet this creates a whole new market for date consent forms with lots of check off boxes that both parties would have to sign off on during the evening……

What do you think my fellow Canadians?  You can post your comments below.

KAV Productions


  1. The two involved are freaks but the judgement would have affected normal decent human beings, It was correct you can’t consent when you are unconscious, because this would affect medicated people, people in coma’s etc… then they would have to prove they didn’t consent to sex while unconscious.

  2. Lets ge real! The Canadian courts are yet again wasting our time and resources. They should focus on the true meaning of consent when it comes to creating laws to assist people who are under the age of consent, thus all the teen age pregnancy we seem to have among our youth. Let us also explore the ongoing concern regarding adults having sex with youth who cannot consent legaly but can be manipulated, taken advantage of, pressured or suduced via alchol and drugs, made pregant and abandoned or simply made ill through STD’s. If an adult consents to her/his partner choking them why would they act so surprized to find themself defiled in other ways. If I was the Judge, I would of told her to stick her law suit where the sun don’t shine!!

  3. Her partner shouldn’t have invited his Algerian friend in……

  4. She consented to asphyxiation. Or so she says as the story goes. It is obvious to me that when someone has reached a point in their relationship where they try different things to spice things up, that they are pretty specific about what they are ok with and not ok with at that time. I’m sure if she is willing to consent to asphyxiation, that previously the topic of some sort of posterior intercourse came up and she wasn’t ok with that. I don’t believe she’d make up this kind of story even if she’s ok with something else. I know I can consent to certain things and not others, and to lump it as all ok because she consented to being asphyxiated is the same as saying its ok for a guy to do something to a girl because he picked her up after the bar and gave her a ride home.

  5. I agree with Mr. Stork’s perspective, I understand that she has a right to say no and object when a trust is broken especially if adults are role playing but why is it even in the news? Is it not a private matter? Perhaps it may be best settled between the adults by ending the relationship. I don’t see the ground breaking victory except that the court upheld her rights. Can we move on….

  6. In reality, this is not the Supreme Court stepping in our bedrooms. They were asked to rule on her case by her. It is not the Supreme Court saying that sodomy isn’t allowed for example, which would then be stepping in our bedrooms. This was a case simply ruling on whether or not she could consent to the act in her state of mind (being knocked out of course from asphyxiation). Which they ruled she could not consent to that activity as such. Maybe others will learn a lesson from it and that is why it is making it to news. To activists standing up for her rights, this is news, to some others, it is not.

Leave a Reply