Article content continued

Spies’ decision came in support of Cameron McCaw, a Toronto man due to stand trial for sexual assault next month.

According to Spies’ ruling, McCaw wishes to argue that he had consumed so much alcohol on the night of the alleged incident that he was unaware of his actions.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

According to allegations contained in her ruling, McCaw allegedly raped the girlfriend of his former roommate after consuming alcohol, marijuana and a “date-rape drug” in July 2015.

His lawyer, Eric Neubauer, filed an application seeking affirmation that Section 33.1 was not in effect in Ontario on the grounds that it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Spies ruled in favour of McCaw, and his trial is slated to proceed on Sept. 12. Neubauer declined to comment on the ruling, citing the fact that the matter is still before the court.

The case at the root of the argument examined by Spies unfolded in 1994 and was resolved in a Supreme Court ruling that came to be known as the Daviault decision.

The country’s top court ruled that Henri Daviault could use extreme intoxication as a defence against charges he sexually assaulted a disabled 65-year-old woman.

Daviault, 72, had consumed up to eight beers and most of a large bottle of brandy. The court ruled Daviault, who was ultimately acquitted, was so drunk he didn’t know what he was doing, and that depriving him of the drunkenness defence would violate the Charter of Rights.

SunMediaArchive

At the time the Supreme Court said it expected the defence would be used only in the “rarest of cases,” but it was successfully invoked in at least three instances involving alcohol or drugs within months of the ruling.