The Crown had appealed the case on a question of law alone. The Ontario Supreme Court granted the appeal.
The Court understood that it had the task of looking into the correctness of both this decision and the decision of R. V. Dix. In the end, both decisions were found to have been wrongfully decided.
The Court had admitted that the decision in R. V. Dix was in fact wrong, and it did not comply with the laws and rules of the common law. The court also stated that people should not be able to consent to have injuries inflicted on them, especially serious and severe injuries that would generally result from unsanctioned fights like this one. It is not any legislature’s interest to have the people it governs consenting to having unnecessary …show more content…
The law has presented us with limitations in regards to the application of our consent, the law hadn’t left people’s consent boundless and unrestricted. An example would be that one couldn’t consent to having death inflicted upon them, a child couldn’t consent to his or her own kidnapping and a drunken man cannot enter into a contract if he doesn’t have a grip on his decision making, a point I believe The Crown should have made when presenting this case; that Mr. Haggart was not sober enough to have his consent be valid.
When looking to this in regards to R. V. Jobidon, we see that Mr. Haggart could not effectively consent to his death, and we can assume that he did not do so. Mr. Haggart had consented to a fair fight between him and Mr. Jobidon; only to have the misfortune of having Mr. Jobidon to go beyond the scope of the given consent and to, unintentionally, cause Mr. Haggart’s death.
When going through this case, the judges found themselves bound by the Common Law, stating that Section. 8 (2) of the code had provided …show more content…
Moreover, had the Parliament wished to reject the common law’s regulations in regard to this matter, I believe it would have specifically stated such in clear wordings. Since no such dismissal is in existence, the court is still bound by the rules and regulations of the common
The Court understood that it had the task of looking into the correctness of both this decision and the decision of R. V. Dix. In the end, both decisions were found to have been wrongfully decided.
The Court had admitted that the decision in R. V. Dix was in fact wrong, and it did not comply with the laws and rules of the common law. The court also stated that people should not be able to consent to have injuries inflicted on them, especially serious and severe injuries that would generally result from unsanctioned fights like this one. It is not any legislature’s interest to have the people it governs consenting to having unnecessary …show more content…
The law has presented us with limitations in regards to the application of our consent, the law hadn’t left people’s consent boundless and unrestricted. An example would be that one couldn’t consent to having death inflicted upon them, a child couldn’t consent to his or her own kidnapping and a drunken man cannot enter into a contract if he doesn’t have a grip on his decision making, a point I believe The Crown should have made when presenting this case; that Mr. Haggart was not sober enough to have his consent be valid.
When looking to this in regards to R. V. Jobidon, we see that Mr. Haggart could not effectively consent to his death, and we can assume that he did not do so. Mr. Haggart had consented to a fair fight between him and Mr. Jobidon; only to have the misfortune of having Mr. Jobidon to go beyond the scope of the given consent and to, unintentionally, cause Mr. Haggart’s death.
When going through this case, the judges found themselves bound by the Common Law, stating that Section. 8 (2) of the code had provided …show more content…
Moreover, had the Parliament wished to reject the common law’s regulations in regard to this matter, I believe it would have specifically stated such in clear wordings. Since no such dismissal is in existence, the court is still bound by the rules and regulations of the common