Le capacité pour une victime d'accomplir des gestes de base n'équivaut pas à une capacité à consentir à des actes sexuels

R. v. Merrit, 2004 CanLII 34353 (ON SC)

Lien vers la décision

[56]        Noting that the relevant inquiry is whether T.W. “lacked the minimal capacity to consent (or withhold her consent) to the sexual activity" (R. v. Jensen (1996), 1996 CanLII 1237 (ON CA), 106 C.C.C. (3d) 430 (Ont. C.A.) at 437), the defence points to certain factual circumstances to argue that a reasonable doubt must exist on the capacity issue.  Counsel for the appellant submitted that at “a basic level”, on arrival at the appellant's house, T.W. knew she was going to be sick, stayed on her own in the bathroom, was able to vomit on her own, and walked unassisted to the appellant's bedroom.  While capacity to consent to sexual activity may not amount to a very significant standard of cognitive awareness, equating relatively primitive actions such as walking a short distance, or unassisted vomiting, to capacity to consent to sex is entirely unpersuasive.  This is particularly so in light of the evidence of the complainant's extreme intoxication including lack of consciousness after midnight.