## Facts

- Roger Cey played in an amateur hockey league governed by organized rules.
- During play, Cey cross-checked an opposing player from behind, striking across the back of the neck near the boards.
- The complainant suffered a concussion and whiplash and was hospitalized.
- A referee assessed Cey a five-minute penalty for cross-checking.
- Cey was charged with assault causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code.
- The trial judge acquitted, finding no intent to injure, concluding the force was “customary,” and treating the complainant’s willingness to keep playing as consent to the risk and force.
- The Crown appealed, alleging legal error on consent.

## Issues

1. Whether participation in organized hockey implies consent to the intentional force used in a dangerous, illegal cross-check causing bodily harm.
2. Whether the trial judge erred by treating the complainant’s general acceptance of hockey’s risks as consent to the specific act.
3. Whether assault causing bodily harm requires intent to injure, or only intent to apply force without consent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal (majority) allowed the Crown appeal, set aside the acquittal, and ordered a new trial.
- The majority held the trial judge misdirected himself on the legal scope of consent in sport.
- The majority held intent to injure is not required; the relevant mental element is intending to apply force that is outside consent.
- Wakeling J.A. dissented and would have upheld the acquittal, viewing the conduct as within what players in that league impliedly consent to absent intent to injure.

## Legal Principles

- Assault is the intentional application of force without the victim’s consent; consent may be express or implied, but is limited by context and by law.
- In contact sports, implied consent generally covers:
  - contact permitted by the rules; and
  - some rule-prohibited contact that remains within the sport’s accepted standards of play.
- Implied consent does not extend to conduct so violent or dangerous that it carries a high risk of injury and a distinct probability of serious harm.
- The scope of implied consent in sport is assessed objectively, considering factors including:
  - the nature of the act;
  - the degree of force;
  - the risk of injury and probability of serious harm;
  - game conditions and circumstances;
  - the injury sustained; and
  - the accused’s state of mind.
- Criminal liability is not barred merely because the act occurs during active play.

## Conclusion

The court held that organized sport does not confer blanket consent to violent or highly dangerous rule-breaking conduct; because the trial judge treated general risk acceptance as consent to the specific cross-check and overemphasized lack of intent to injure, the acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.


Regina v. Cey, 48 C.C.C. (3d) 480 (Sask. C.A. 1989)