All 4 - CRIMES - Proof thereof

R v Ewanchuk, 1999 SCJ 10 (Major): [25] The actus reus of sexual assault is established by the proof of three elements: (i) touching, (ii) the sexual nature of the contact, and (iii) the absence of consent. The first two of these elements are objective. It is sufficient for the Crown to prove that the accused’s actions were voluntary. The Read more...

R v Ewanchuk, 1999 SCJ 10 (Major): [26] The absence of consent, however, is subjective and determined by reference to the complainant’s subjective internal state of mind towards the touching, at the time it occurred: see R. v. Jensen (1996), 106 C.C.C. (3d) 430 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 437-38, aff’d [1997] 1 S.C.R. 304, R. v. Park, [1995] 2 S.C.R. Read more...

R v Paszczenko; R v Lima – 2010 ONCA 615 (Blair): [61] It is technically unnecessary to resolve this debate, given the analysis outlined above. I am inclined to the view, however, that courts are entitled to take judicial notice (a) of the fact that the majority of human beings eliminate alcohol in a range of 10-20 milligrams of alcohol Read more...

R v Paszczenko; R v Lima – 2010 ONCA 615 (Blair): [27] “Bolus drinking” is generally meant to describe the consumption of large quantities of alcohol immediately or shortly before driving: see Grosse, at p. 788; R. v. Hall (2007), 83 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), at para. 14. See also Phillips at pp. 158-162, for a description of the “relatively Read more...

R v JA – 2011 SCC 28 (McLachlin): [36] Section 273.1(2)(b) provides that no consent is obtained if “the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity”. Parliament was concerned that sexual acts might be perpetrated on persons who do not have the mental capacity to give meaningful consent. This might be because of mental impairment. It also might arise Read more...