FIDO
FACTS
In Winnipeg, Manitoba, Clato Lual Mabior did not disclose to his partners that he was HIV positive. This occurred between 2004 and 2005. (CBC News, 2014) He was taken to court by nine complainants. However, none of them contracted HIV. Eight of nine of the complainants claimed they would not have had intercourse with Mabior if they knew about his HIV status. During the time, the accused was undergoing antiretroviral therapy. He was having both protected and unprotected sex, as it was discovered he used a condom with five of the women and no condom with the other 4 (S.H, D.C.S, D.H) women. Mabior was charged with nine counts of aggravated assault due to his failure to disclose that he is HIV positive. Although it was criticized for failing to draw a clear line between criminal and non-criminal conduct, the Cuerrier test was applied to Mabior’s case. This test determines whether someone is in significant risk of or have been caused serious bodily harm by having sexual contact with the HIV positive accused. The test is divided into two important sections: A dishonest act and deprivation. Therefore, if there is no realistic possibility of the transmission of HIV, failure to disclose HIV status will not constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations. Initially, Mabior was convicted on six aggravated sexual assault counts and acquitted on the other three since his viral loads were undetectable and he wore a condom. Furthermore, he appealed the decision to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The courts decided that doing one of either having low viral loads or wearing a condom would eliminate significant risk. The convictions decreased from six to two since they acquitted four of the counts. Moreover, the Crown appealed the acquittals from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and took it to the Supreme Court of Canada. ISSUE Was it Mabior’s responsibility to tell his partners about his HIV positive status considering his circumstances? Is their consent vitiated because he did not disclose his condition? Generally, a realistic possibility of transmitting HIV is invalidated if the accused used a condom during sexual intercourse and if he had a low viral load at the time. The accused had a low viral load but did not use a condom with four of the complainants. The question of whether he should have disclosed his HIV status remains since he did not wear a condom and technically had a realistic possibility of transmitting HIV to his partners. This case is unique because Mabior tried to argue that either low viral loads or using a condom could remove the possibility of contracting HIV. While everyone had different responses to his statement, it created questions regarding the laws, leaving …show more content…
V. Mabior case has a major significance on Canadian society. It clarifies that it is important to disclose one’s HIV positive status, along with any other transmissive STD, as it may have a realistic possibility of transmission. It also reminds those who are HIV positive that the only way a realistic possibility of transmission is negated is if the person has a low viral load and uses a condom during sexual intercourse. HIV is particularly relevant in the lives of men who have sex with other men (MSM). According to statistics taken in 2014, MSM represent 2.4% of the Canadian population, yet are 131% more likely to get HIV then men who do not have sex with men. Furthermore, 57% of all new HIV infections in Canada are in MSM and 54% of these new infections were transmitted via sex. (Challacombe L, 2017) In a community where STDs are more common, the Court’s decision helps MSM navigate what should be done in similar situations. This decision raises awareness for HIV and the people who have this condition. It evokes people to ensure that they are having protective sex, discussing their sexual health with their partners, and establishing a relationship based on consent. On the other hand, the Court’s decision reminds people who have intercourse with the opposite sex that HIV isn’t only prevalent in homosexual relations. Many have the idea that HIV and Aids are nonexistent in opposite sex relationships, which could affect the way in which they approach protection and consent. Again, this case did indeed have a huge social significance and impact on the Canadian
FACTS
In Winnipeg, Manitoba, Clato Lual Mabior did not disclose to his partners that he was HIV positive. This occurred between 2004 and 2005. (CBC News, 2014) He was taken to court by nine complainants. However, none of them contracted HIV. Eight of nine of the complainants claimed they would not have had intercourse with Mabior if they knew about his HIV status. During the time, the accused was undergoing antiretroviral therapy. He was having both protected and unprotected sex, as it was discovered he used a condom with five of the women and no condom with the other 4 (S.H, D.C.S, D.H) women. Mabior was charged with nine counts of aggravated assault due to his failure to disclose that he is HIV positive. Although it was criticized for failing to draw a clear line between criminal and non-criminal conduct, the Cuerrier test was applied to Mabior’s case. This test determines whether someone is in significant risk of or have been caused serious bodily harm by having sexual contact with the HIV positive accused. The test is divided into two important sections: A dishonest act and deprivation. Therefore, if there is no realistic possibility of the transmission of HIV, failure to disclose HIV status will not constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations. Initially, Mabior was convicted on six aggravated sexual assault counts and acquitted on the other three since his viral loads were undetectable and he wore a condom. Furthermore, he appealed the decision to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The courts decided that doing one of either having low viral loads or wearing a condom would eliminate significant risk. The convictions decreased from six to two since they acquitted four of the counts. Moreover, the Crown appealed the acquittals from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and took it to the Supreme Court of Canada. ISSUE Was it Mabior’s responsibility to tell his partners about his HIV positive status considering his circumstances? Is their consent vitiated because he did not disclose his condition? Generally, a realistic possibility of transmitting HIV is invalidated if the accused used a condom during sexual intercourse and if he had a low viral load at the time. The accused had a low viral load but did not use a condom with four of the complainants. The question of whether he should have disclosed his HIV status remains since he did not wear a condom and technically had a realistic possibility of transmitting HIV to his partners. This case is unique because Mabior tried to argue that either low viral loads or using a condom could remove the possibility of contracting HIV. While everyone had different responses to his statement, it created questions regarding the laws, leaving …show more content…
V. Mabior case has a major significance on Canadian society. It clarifies that it is important to disclose one’s HIV positive status, along with any other transmissive STD, as it may have a realistic possibility of transmission. It also reminds those who are HIV positive that the only way a realistic possibility of transmission is negated is if the person has a low viral load and uses a condom during sexual intercourse. HIV is particularly relevant in the lives of men who have sex with other men (MSM). According to statistics taken in 2014, MSM represent 2.4% of the Canadian population, yet are 131% more likely to get HIV then men who do not have sex with men. Furthermore, 57% of all new HIV infections in Canada are in MSM and 54% of these new infections were transmitted via sex. (Challacombe L, 2017) In a community where STDs are more common, the Court’s decision helps MSM navigate what should be done in similar situations. This decision raises awareness for HIV and the people who have this condition. It evokes people to ensure that they are having protective sex, discussing their sexual health with their partners, and establishing a relationship based on consent. On the other hand, the Court’s decision reminds people who have intercourse with the opposite sex that HIV isn’t only prevalent in homosexual relations. Many have the idea that HIV and Aids are nonexistent in opposite sex relationships, which could affect the way in which they approach protection and consent. Again, this case did indeed have a huge social significance and impact on the Canadian