During a jury trial for manslaughter (unlawful act) and assault arising from a fatal altercation, the court addressed the proper jury instruction concerning consent to assault.
The issue was whether consent is vitiated by intended bodily harm or only by intended serious bodily harm.
Relying on appellate authority, the court held that the threshold for vitiation of consent is serious bodily harm rather than the statutory definition of bodily harm.
The jury was therefore to be instructed on the Criminal Code definition of bodily harm and the jurisprudential definition of serious bodily harm, with the term “serious” left to the jury’s ordinary understanding.
The ruling clarified the correct legal standard governing consent in the context of assault forming the unlawful act for manslaughter.
