Lettuce - this one's for you buddy

[The Brain]

Maybe, maybe not. Consent isn't always an effective defense when there is serious bodily harm.

In this country, consent is never a defence to bodily harm.  See R v Jobidon.

Yours is a nation of complete pussies. No offense.

[Ideologue]

Maybe, maybe not. Consent isn't always an effective defense when there is serious bodily harm.

In this country, consent is never a defence to bodily harm.  See R v Jobidon.

So Canada has totally outlawed BDSM?  Also boxing?  Neat.

I'm going back to bed, so I don't have time to look into it, but are you sure it's not "grievous bodily harm" or something similar?

[Josquius]

Never has been so appropriate.

[Caliga]

 

[Eddie Teach]

Maybe, maybe not. Consent isn't always an effective defense when there is serious bodily harm.

In this country, consent is never a defence to bodily harm.  See R v Jobidon.

So Canada has totally outlawed BDSM?  Also boxing?  Neat.

I'm going back to bed, so I don't have time to look into it, but are you sure it's not "grievous bodily harm" or something similar?

No way! They even have a national holiday dedicated to boxing.

[Barrister]

Maybe, maybe not. Consent isn't always an effective defense when there is serious bodily harm.

In this country, consent is never a defence to bodily harm.  See R v Jobidon.

So Canada has totally outlawed BDSM?  Also boxing?  Neat.

I'm going back to bed, so I don't have time to look into it, but are you sure it's not "grievous bodily harm" or something similar?

Come on, man.  I gave you the name of the case.  I googled it, and the first hit is the case itself.

"grievous bodily harm" doesn't exist in Canadian law.  "bodily harm" however is defined in section 2 of the Code:

"bodily harm" means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;

The Supremes, in Jobidon, were clear: you can not consent to bodily harm.

This can and does effect some of the more extreme forms of BDSM, but not when practiced safely.  It's generally found not to effect boxing, since a fight is called before bodily harm results.

[dps]

It's generally found not to effect boxing, since a fight is called before bodily harm results.

Tell that to Duk Koo Kim

[Ideologue]

Maybe, maybe not. Consent isn't always an effective defense when there is serious bodily harm.

In this country, consent is never a defence to bodily harm.  See R v Jobidon.

So Canada has totally outlawed BDSM?  Also boxing?  Neat.

I'm going back to bed, so I don't have time to look into it, but are you sure it's not "grievous bodily harm" or something similar?

Come on, man.  I gave you the name of the case.  I googled it, and the first hit is the case itself.

"grievous bodily harm" doesn't exist in Canadian law.  "bodily harm" however is defined in section 2 of the Code:

"bodily harm" means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;

The Supremes, in Jobidon, were clear: you can not consent to bodily harm.

This can and does effect some of the more extreme forms of BDSM, but not when practiced safely.  It's generally found not to effect boxing, since a fight is called before bodily harm results.

"The limitation demanded by s. 265 as it applies to the circumstances of this appeal is one which vitiates (negates) consent between adults intentionally to apply force causing serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm to each other in the course of a fist fight or brawl."

I.e., my intuitions were correct.

And yeah, I'm aware of Canada's weird animus toward BDSM.  (Although the particular case we're both thinking of involved some seriously unsafe practices, safe practices can involve unconsciousness and pre-consent too.)

[Ideologue]

That said, clearly "blinding somebody" counts as one serious hurt.