1. R v. Currier [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371
Procedural History:
This is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a court of appeal wherein the
acquittal of the accused was upheld.
Facts:
 The accused is charged with two counts of aggravated assault
 A public health nurse had explicitly instructed the accused to warn prospective sexual
partners of his HIV positive status and to use condoms whenever engaging in sexual
intercourse
 The accused engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with the complainants without
informing them of his HIV positive status
 The complainants claimthat they would not have engaged in sexual intercourse with
the accused had they known of his HIV positive status
 At trial neither complainant had tested positive for HIV
Issues:
1. Did the accused’s actions endanger the life of the complainants?
2. Did the accused intentionally apply force to the complainants without their consent?
3. Did non-disclosure of HIV positive status constitute fraud?
Decision:
The appeal should be allowed and a new trial has been ordered
Ratio:
It is dishonest and therefore fraudulent to withhold information in a situation where your
dishonesty directly affects the other party.
Reasons:
1. Pursuant to s.2868.1 of the Criminal Code the accused’s actions posed serious
endangerment to the lives of the complainants
2. Consent is vitiated by the act of fraud, pursuant to s.263.3c of the Criminal Code. In
1983 the statutory language was repealed and its replacement by a reference simply to
“fraud” indicates that Parliament’s intention was to provide a more flexible concept of
fraud in assault and sexual assault cases.
3. In the context of the wording of s.265 of the Criminal Code, the accused’s non-disclosure
of his HIV positive status constitutes fraud. This is a result of fraud being defined as
dishonesty in both criminal and commercial law.