R v JA 2011 SCC 28 is a criminal law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding consent in cases of sexual assaults.

lost consciousness for about three minutes, and she understood this might happen when she consented to being choked.

made a complaint to the police, saying that the activity was not consensual, although she later recanted her statement.

was found guilty of sexual assault and breaching his probation order.

In addition, the majority found that persons can consent to sexual activity to take place after they are rendered unconscious.

The majority also concluded that while the trial judge erred and that there was, in fact, bodily harm, they ruled that bodily harm cannot vitiate consent on a charge of only sexual assault.

The majority reviewed the definition of consent for sexual assaults found in section 273.1 of the Criminal Code,[2] and concluded that: "Parliament viewed consent as the conscious agreement of the complainant to engage in every sexual act in a particular encounter."

The dissent found a number of problems with the majority's interpretation: The dissent found that absent a clear prohibition in the Criminal Code, a conscious person can consent in advance to sexual activity to take place while they are unconscious, provided there is no bodily harm, and provided the sexual activity did not go beyond what was agreed to.

[3][4][5] Elizabeth Sheehy, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who represented LEAF at the Supreme Court, said that the decision protects women who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation because they are asleep, medicated, have episodic disabilities, or are drunk.

Sheehy noted that the decision upheld that "unconscious women are not sexually available".

[6] Rosie DiManno, a columnist with the Toronto Star, criticized the decision, saying that it "infantilizes" women.