<p> A person can be charged with sexual assault for not wearing a condom without a partner's consent during sex, Canada's top court ruled on Friday. The case was decided 5-4.</p>.<p>The court was unanimous in saying Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick must go on trial for sexual assault for not wearing a condom during sex with a woman who consented only to protected sex. It did not say whether he was guilty of those charges.</p>.<p>Kirkpatrick was initially acquitted of the charges in British Columbia before an appeals court ordered a retrial.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/allahabad-high-court-calls-for-sensitivity-in-cases-involving-rape-survivors-differently-abled-people-1129686.html">Allahabad High Court calls for sensitivity in cases involving rape survivors, differently-abled people</a></strong></p>.<p>The ruling was overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which ordered a new trial. Kirkpatrick appealed that decision to the country’s top court, which heard arguments in November.</p>.<p>“Sexual intercourse without a condom is a fundamentally and qualitatively different physical act than sexual intercourse with a condom,” states the ruling, which was approved by a 5-4 vote by the court and was released Friday.</p>.<p>It adds: “Condom use cannot be irrelevant, secondary or incidental when the complainant has expressly conditioned her consent on it.”</p>.<p>Kirkpatrick’s lawyer said the new interpretation of the criminal code, which will be standard across the country, would drastically change the rules around sexual consent, making it almost like a binding contract that could be signed in advance.</p>.<p>"Since only yes means yes and no means no, it cannot be that 'no, not without a condom' means 'yes, without a condom'," Justice Sheilah Martin wrote in the majority opinion.</p>.<p>"Recognizing that condom use may form part of the sexual activity in question is also the only way to respect the need for a complainant's affirmative and subjective consent to each and every sexual act, every time," the judgment read.</p>.<p>Kirkpatrick met a woman online and then in person for a possible sexual relationship. They had sex twice in one night in 2017, once with a condom and then again without one, though without the woman's knowledge, according to the complaint.</p>.<p>The complainant said she did not know that he did not use a condom the second time, and if she did, she would not have agreed to it.</p>.<p>Under Canadian law, sexual assault requires proof of a lack of consent to a particular sexual activity in question.</p>.<p>(<em>With NYT inputs)</em></p>
<p> A person can be charged with sexual assault for not wearing a condom without a partner's consent during sex, Canada's top court ruled on Friday. The case was decided 5-4.</p>.<p>The court was unanimous in saying Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick must go on trial for sexual assault for not wearing a condom during sex with a woman who consented only to protected sex. It did not say whether he was guilty of those charges.</p>.<p>Kirkpatrick was initially acquitted of the charges in British Columbia before an appeals court ordered a retrial.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/allahabad-high-court-calls-for-sensitivity-in-cases-involving-rape-survivors-differently-abled-people-1129686.html">Allahabad High Court calls for sensitivity in cases involving rape survivors, differently-abled people</a></strong></p>.<p>The ruling was overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which ordered a new trial. Kirkpatrick appealed that decision to the country’s top court, which heard arguments in November.</p>.<p>“Sexual intercourse without a condom is a fundamentally and qualitatively different physical act than sexual intercourse with a condom,” states the ruling, which was approved by a 5-4 vote by the court and was released Friday.</p>.<p>It adds: “Condom use cannot be irrelevant, secondary or incidental when the complainant has expressly conditioned her consent on it.”</p>.<p>Kirkpatrick’s lawyer said the new interpretation of the criminal code, which will be standard across the country, would drastically change the rules around sexual consent, making it almost like a binding contract that could be signed in advance.</p>.<p>"Since only yes means yes and no means no, it cannot be that 'no, not without a condom' means 'yes, without a condom'," Justice Sheilah Martin wrote in the majority opinion.</p>.<p>"Recognizing that condom use may form part of the sexual activity in question is also the only way to respect the need for a complainant's affirmative and subjective consent to each and every sexual act, every time," the judgment read.</p>.<p>Kirkpatrick met a woman online and then in person for a possible sexual relationship. They had sex twice in one night in 2017, once with a condom and then again without one, though without the woman's knowledge, according to the complaint.</p>.<p>The complainant said she did not know that he did not use a condom the second time, and if she did, she would not have agreed to it.</p>.<p>Under Canadian law, sexual assault requires proof of a lack of consent to a particular sexual activity in question.</p>.<p>(<em>With NYT inputs)</em></p>