Dr. Philippe El-Helou

The appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2013 for non-disclosure of her HIV-positive status during condomless vaginal intercourse, which the trial judge found vitiated consent due to a realistic possibility of transmission.

On appeal, fresh expert evidence was admitted, demonstrating that with antiretroviral treatment (ART) and an undetectable viral load, the risk of HIV transmission is effectively zero.

The Court of Appeal found that this new scientific understanding undermined the trial judge's conclusion regarding the realistic possibility of transmission in the appellant's specific circumstances.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The court declined to make a broader statement on the "realistic possibility of transmission" threshold beyond the specific facts of the case, citing institutional concerns and limitations of the fresh evidence record regarding multiple sexual contacts or viral loads that are suppressed but not undetectable.

The accused, an HIV and HSV positive individual, was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for non-disclosure of HIV status to three complainants, one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm for allegedly transmitting HSV to one complainant, and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in intimate relationships without disclosing his viral status.

The trial focused on whether non-disclosure vitiated consent and whether there was a realistic possibility of HIV transmission.

The court found that while the accused failed to disclose his HIV status, his undetectable viral load for more than six months negated any realistic possibility of transmission, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Mabior.

The court also found insufficient evidence to prove causation of the HSV infection.

All charges were dismissed.