The Supreme Court of Canada held that the offense of sexual assault causing bodily harm is a general intent offense; thus, the only intent that needs to be shown for conviction is that the accused intended to perform the act, and the defense of self-induced intoxication may not be considered.

Alcohol Drinking↗

PubMed1988

R. v. Morgentaler, 28 January 1988.

The appellants, physicians who had set up a clinic to perform abortions, were charged with conspiracy with intent to commit abortions contrary to Section 251(4) of the Canadian Criminal Code. Section 251(4) prohibits abortions being performed upon women who have not obtained a certificate from a therapeutic abortion committee of an accredited or approved hospital. On appeal of a lower court decision ordering a new trial for the appellants after a jury had acquitted them, the Supreme Court held (two justices dissenting) that conditioning the performance of an abortion upon certification by an abortion committee violated the right of security of the person contained in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The five justices in the majority wrote three separate opinions which pointed out, variously, that Section 251 imposed unnecessary procedures and restrictions, restricted access to hospitals, caused delays, resulted in physical, psychological and emotional risk to the woman, and forced some women to carry a fetus to term against their will.

Abortion, Induced↗

PubMed1987

C.N.R. v. Cdn. Human Rights Comm., 25 June 1987.

The complainant women employees appealed a lower court ruling that, although they had been discriminated against in employment by their employer, the creation of an affirmative action program setting a percentage of women to be hired was not an appropriate remedy under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Court reversed this ruling. It held a) that the Act was to be given a fair, large, and liberal interpretation; b) that remedies under the Act were not limited at the prevention of future discrimination, but could be used as a remedy for past practices; c) that in not requiring proof of intent the Act was clearly designed to deal with systematic discrimination; and d) that systematic discrimination required systematic remedies, including specific hiring goals. The Court also rejected an appeal of the employer that there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination.

Americas↗

PubMed1987

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, 29 July 1987.

The appellant brought a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act against her supervisor and employer charging sexual discrimination in the form of sexual harassment. She complained that her supervisor had pressured her into sexual acts and threatened her with work-related consequences if she refused. The issue on appeal was whether the employer was liable for acts of its employee. The Supreme Court held that it was. It ruled a) that since the Act was primarily concerned with ending discrimination, rather than punishment, intent to discriminate was irrelevant; b) that the Act contemplated employer liability for acts of its employees; c) that only the employer could provide the most important remedy, a healthy work environment; and d) that the objectives of the Act would be nullified if the employer were not liable to make remedies.

Americas↗

PubMed1986