{"id":6226,"date":"2015-07-14T15:00:35","date_gmt":"2015-07-14T15:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/doyonavocats.ca\/un-evanouissement-peut-constituer-des-lesions-corporelles\/"},"modified":"2019-08-21T07:48:26","modified_gmt":"2019-08-21T11:48:26","slug":"un-evanouissement-peut-constituer-des-lesions-corporelles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/un-evanouissement-peut-constituer-des-lesions-corporelles\/","title":{"rendered":"Un \u00e9vanouissement peut constituer des l\u00e9sions corporelles : A.N. c. R., 2015 QCCA 1109\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Un \u00e9vanouissement peut-il constituer des l\u00e9sions corporelles ?<\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"canlii.ca\/t\/gjn2z\"><em>A.N. c. R.<\/em>, 2015 QCCA 1109<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[99]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The other argument raised in this ground is that the conviction of Appellant under Count 14 for negligence causing bodily harm because he forced X under a cold shower for a prolonged period of time, causing him to lose consciousness is tainted with an error of law since fainting does not constitute bodily harm. The judge said this:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;\">[839]\u00a0\u00a0 (\u2026) Le concept juridique de \u00ab l\u00e9sions corporelles \u00bb pr\u00e9vu \u00e0 l\u2019art 2 du\u00a0<a href=\"unik.caij.qc.ca\/en\/ca\/laws\/stat\/rsc-1985-c-c-46\/latest\/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html\">Code criminel<\/a>\u00a0exige que la l\u00e9sion en cause ne soit pas de nature passag\u00e8re, mais dans le contexte particulier de cette cause, je consid\u00e8re que les \u00e9l\u00e9ments constitutifs requis ont \u00e9t\u00e9 prouv\u00e9s, et ce, hors de tout doute raisonnable.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Crown agrees that this part of the judgment should be reversed and that an acquittal be entered. The Court howfainever is not bound by the Crown\u2019s position.<a name=\"_ftnref44\"><\/a>[44]\u00a0I think it is wrong; fainting can be \u201cbodily harm\u201d in my opinion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[100]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The definition of bodily harm in the\u00a0<em><a href=\"unik.caij.qc.ca\/en\/ca\/laws\/stat\/rsc-1985-c-c-46\/latest\/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html\">Criminal Code<\/a><\/em>\u00a0is as follows:<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"317\">2. In this Act,(\u2026)<\/p>\n<p>\u201cbodily harm\u201d means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of\u00a0<b>the<\/b>\u00a0person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;<\/td>\n<td width=\"317\">2. Les d\u00e9finitions qui suivent s\u2019appliquent \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sente loi.[&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>\u00ab l\u00e9sions corporelles \u00bb Blessure qui nuit \u00e0 la sant\u00e9 ou au bien-\u00eatre d\u2019une personne et qui n\u2019est pas de nature passag\u00e8re ou sans importance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[101]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Despite some ambiguity, in the\u00a0foregoing\u00a0quote\u00a0from paragraph 839 of the judgment, the judge arrived at the conclusion that the elements of the offence were proved. In this regard she found that:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>i) \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0the cold shower caused hurt or\u00a0injury\u00a0to X;<\/li>\n<li>ii) \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0that the hurt or injury interfered with X\u2019s health or comfort; and<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">iii)\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0that the hurt or injury was not trifling or was not transient.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[102]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The facts found by the judge are not challenged. Rather, Appellant argues that fainting cannot constitute bodily harm.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[103]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Bodily harm is not restricted to cuts, bruises, scratches or other injuries which are readily visible on the victim\u2019s body.<a name=\"_ftnref45\"><\/a>[45]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[104]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The ultimate issue in this case is the manner in which \u201ctransient or trifling\u201d in the definition of bodily harm should be read. Otherwise stated, is the definition met where (in this case) the hurt is more than merely transitory or more than merely trifling?<a name=\"_ftnref46\"><\/a>[46]\u00a0At Common Law, the definition was \u201cmore than merely transitory and trifling\u201d. The \u201cand\u201d became an \u201cor\u201d on codification.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[105]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The Ontario Court of Appeal examined the definition of bodily harm in\u00a0<em>R. v. J.A.<\/em><a name=\"_ftnref47\"><\/a>[47]\u00a0and although the observations are largely\u00a0<em>obiter<\/em><a name=\"_ftnref48\"><\/a>[48]\u00a0they are applicable to the present issue and I agree with them. In\u00a0<em>R. v. J.A<\/em>., Simmons J.A., writing for the Ontario Court of Appeal, preferred a \u201cpositive\u201d interpretation because of:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>i) \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0the wording which focuses on what constitutes bodily harm rather than what is excluded;<\/li>\n<li>ii) \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0the legislative history which does not indicate that Parliament intended to change the meaning of the Common Law formulation, and<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">iii)\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0the fact that injuries of short duration are recognized by the courts as being sufficiently serious to constitute bodily harm.<a name=\"_ftnref49\"><\/a>[49]\u00a0For example, one can lose consciousness upon receiving an electric shock from a taser. The fact that one shortly regains consciousness may make the injury transient but hardly trifling. Is this not bodily harm? The answer is self-evident.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[106]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0In this case, the fainting of X was certainly not trifling even though it may have been transient. The fainting constitutes bodily harm and is an indication that the act (the cold shower) caused such interference with X\u2019s health by an effect (hypothermia) on his system which resulted in a loss of consciousness. There was no expert evidence. However, the facts speak for themselves as to the causal link between the cold shower and the loss of consciousness.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[107]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0I should not be taken to say that every loss of consciousness will satisfy the definition of bodily harm since not every loss of consciousness stems from an injury (for example sleeping). However, in this case, since the judge\u2019s factual findings are not put in issue and because I disagree with the parties\u2019 submission that fainting does not,\u00a0<em>per se<\/em>, in law, constitute bodily harm, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt on count 14. The issue is one of mixed fact and law and as can be seen in the foregoing analysis, I find no error in the judge\u2019s conclusion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Un \u00e9vanouissement peut-il constituer des l\u00e9sions corporelles ? A.N. c. R., 2015 QCCA 1109 [99]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The other argument raised in this ground is that the conviction of Appellant under Count 14 for negligence causing bodily harm because he forced X under a cold shower for a prolonged period of time, causing him to lose [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10974,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6226"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6226\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6226"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}