1. R v. Bolduc and Bird [1967] S.C.R. 677
Procedural History:
This is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the court of appeal where the 2 accused
individuals’ convictions were upheld.
Facts:
 The doctor (accused A), asked the victim if a medical intern (accused B) could sit in on
her exam.
 The “medical intern” in question is actually a layman, and not in fact an intern.
 During said exam the complainant’s intimate parts were exposed to both the doctor and
the layman.
 The complainant was never touched inappropriately by the doctor or the layman.
Issues:
1. Do the actions of the appellants fit the requirements of fraud under s.141 of the
Criminal Code?
2. Was the consent of the complainant valid?
Decision:
The appeal will be allowed and acquittals entered for the appellants.
Ratio:
Consent was not obtained through false or fraudulent claims to the nature and/or quality of the
act as performed by the doctor.
Reasons:
1. The appellants were not guilty of indecent assault under s.141 of the Criminal Code.
Consent was given to the doctor’s actions and therefore the doctor and the layman did
not commit a crime.
2. Consent is not valid if it is obtained under false pretenses, however that is not the case
here. The layman was nothing more than a peeping tom so to speak, and the doctor
completed the act that the complainant consented to.