R v Cuerrier was a 1998 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV constitutes a prosecutable crime (aggravated assault) under Canadian law.

In another minority opinion, Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé argued that the first, and third criteria set out by Cory should suffice for a conviction; she did not favour a burden of proof whether there was an actual risk of harm.

The group raised a number of potential implications of the decision, including: The court also did not rule that any burden of proof exists whether the accused even knew how to protect their sexual partners.

Generally, legal analysts and HIV educators viewed the decision as "the wrong tool for the job", suggesting that it was an attempt to use criminal law to resolve what is, first and foremost, a public health matter.

[citation needed] In a similar American case, Stephen Gendin, a vice-president of Poz, commented that it would be one thing if we had perfect HIV prevention, and still there were people who were "acting irresponsibly".

[1] Ray Mercer, a 28-year-old man from Upper Island Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador, was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm in 1991 after potentially infecting up to 14 women.

[2] On October 28, 2005, Canadian Football League player Trevis Smith was also charged with aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose his HIV status to a sex partner.

On November 16, a court ruled that there was sufficient evidence for Johnson Aziga, whose case was first investigated, and publicized in 2004, to stand trial on two counts of first-degree murder after two of his former sexual partners died of AIDS.

In Mabior, the Court found that "significant risk of bodily harm is negated if (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low; and (ii) condom protection was used".