The Reflection Of The R V. Jobidon Case

In this reflection paper, I will be discussing the R v Jobidon case. In this case, the specific issue from the judgement I would like to address is the issue whether consent can be read out of the offence of criminal assault. According to section 265 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code, assault is defined as the intentional application of force to another person “without the consent of [the other] person.” This reflection paper will first acknowledge implications of statutory interpretation of common law, instead of the Criminal Code. Next, the paper will examine the case through the lens of the liberalism principle to help us better understand the reconsidering of the issue. The paper will then examine my reasoning behind disagreeing with the judgement from the R v Jobidon case. I will conclude my paper with a brief discussion of the next steps to address where to go from here regarding reconsidering the issue.
Reflection:
This topic is of great interest to me because this case is not just about whether consent is an essential element …show more content…
Labaye, grounded in the principle of liberalism, not only recognizes the importance of challenging the mainstream beliefs about sexuality, but also subverts certain dominant sexual norms. The harm principle that was emphasized in the Labaye case utilized meaningful, informed consent by the patrons in the club as relevant consideration. In assessing how Labaye’s actions caused harm to society, the courts looked at the nature of the harm that it caused. In conclusion, the courts application of the harm principle test in the Labaye case, that the conduct was not harming the public at large, and was purely voluntary and equal for the participants. While on the other hand in the Jobidon case, consent is vitiated when it comes to consenting to circumstances that result in the intention infliction of bodily