Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

R. v. Thornton, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 445

 

James Charles Thornton                                                                   Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                   Respondent

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Thornton

 

File No.:  22312.

 

1993:  June 4.

 

Present:  Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

 

                   Criminal law ‑‑ Nuisance ‑‑ Accused convicted of nuisance for donating blood he knew to be HIV‑contaminated to Red Cross ‑‑ Accused having duty of care in giving blood under s. 216  of Criminal Code  ‑‑ Duty of care breached by failure to disclose that blood contained HIV antibodies ‑‑ Lives, safety and health of public endangered ‑‑ Conviction upheld.

 

Statutes and Regulations Cited

 

Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46 , s. 216 .

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1991), 1 O.R. (3d) 480, 42 O.A.C. 206, 3 C.R. (4th) 381, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction by Flanigan Dist. Ct. J. (1989), 8 W.C.B. (2d) 156, on a charge of committing a nuisance.  Appeal dismissed.

 

                   Lawrence Greenspon and Judie Y. W. Chan, for the appellant.

 

                   Michal Fairburn, for the respondent.

 

//Lamer C.J.//

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

                   Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that this appeal fails.  Section 216 imposed upon the appellant a duty of care in giving his blood to the Red Cross.  This duty of care was breached by not disclosing that his blood contained HIV antibodies.  This common nuisance obviously endangered the life, safety and health of the public.

 

                   The appeal is dismissed.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellant:  Karam, Greenspon, Ottawa.

 

                   Solicitor for the respondent:  The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.