During a criminal jury trial for multiple sexual offences including incest, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict on the incest count, arguing that penile penetration of the complainant’s anus could not constitute “sexual intercourse” under s. 155 of the Criminal Code.
The court was required to interpret the meaning of “sexual intercourse” in light of s. 4(5) of the Criminal Code and the purposes of the incest prohibition.
Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the court held that the offence aims both to prevent genetic risks associated with inbreeding and to protect vulnerable family members.
Limiting sexual intercourse to penile-vaginal penetration would undermine the protective purpose of the provision and exclude male victims.
The court concluded that sexual intercourse includes penile penetration of the anus and therefore sufficient evidence existed for the jury to consider the incest charge.
