Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

Where the Supreme Court went wrong on HIV disclosure

The Supreme Court of Canada building in Ottawa.


In two landmark judgments last week – R. v. Mabior and R. v. D.C. – the Supreme Court of Canada tried to clarify criminal sanctions against people who fail to disclose to potential sex partners that they are infected with HIV.

Its new, stringent test requires individuals to disclose their HIV status if there is a "realistic possibility" a sex partner might become infected. To escape prosecution, infected individuals will henceforth have to have a "low viral load" and use a condom.

Advocates of those suffering from HIV believe the decisions fly in the face of increasing medical advances in treating and controlling HIV. Other critics see the rulings as confusing and poorly articulated.

Story continues below advertisement

What is a "realistic possibility" of infection?

The court's new tests are imprecise. Experts testifying at future trials are bound to disagree. Trial judges will reach varying conclusions. Appeals will inevitably be pursued and, eventually, the issue will come back again to the Supreme Court of Canada for resolution. "It makes me wonder to what extent the Supreme Court really understood the evidence about viral loads," says Jonathan Shime, a lawyer for a coalition of HIV-AIDS organizations. "Is one in five thousand a realistic possibility? What about one in a hundred thousand?"

Other STDs

The court confined its analysis to HIV, leaving individuals with gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes in legal darkness – and guaranteeing a string of future appeals.

Other sex practices

Last week's judgments are narrowly confined to vaginal intercourse. But what form of disclosure is needed for, say, oral sex? "They just dodged it, even though they know these cases are in the trial courts right now," University of British Columbia law professor Isabel Grant says.

The broken condom

Story continues below advertisement

If a condom breaks, does an individual with HIV have to inform his sex partner of his medical status after the fact? The court gave no guidance on a scenario that is far from uncommon.


Persuading an individual to have sex through fraud is a form of sexual assault. By stating that a low HIV viral load and the use of a condom counter the obligation to disclose HIV status, the court suggests that unwitting sex partners can be deprived of the chance to decide whether they are willing to accept minute risks of infection.

The court also made virtually no reference to recent decisions that stress the need for consent before any sex act. "Sexual assault is wrong regardless of whether it causes specific harm," University of Ottawa law professor Carissima Mathen says.

Prof. Grant says the court's failure to square the HIV cases with sexual-assault jurisprudence is troubling. "I think this case demonstrates how we are going to mess up sexual-assault law with these HIV cases."

Report an error Licensing Options
About the Author
Justice reporter

Born in Montreal, Aug. 3, 1954. BA (Journalism) Ryerson, 1979. Previously covered environment beat, Queen's Park. Toronto courts bureau from 1981-85. Justice beat from 1985 - present. More


The Globe invites you to share your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful to everyone. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

We’ve made some technical updates to our commenting software. If you are experiencing any issues posting comments, simply log out and log back in.

Discussion loading… ✨

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Thank you!

You are now subscribed to the newsletter at

You can unsubscribe from this newsletter or Globe promotions at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of the newsletter, or by emailing us at