R v Reddick, 1991 – 1 SCR 1086 (McLachlin): [3] The defence of honest but mistaken belief that the victim consented to the sexual intercourse on which the charge of sexual assault is based is available only where it is supported by evidence from sources other than the accused, which lends the defence an “air of reality”. As McIntyre J. Read more...
R v MLM, 1994 SCJ 34 (Sopinka): [2]….The majority of the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that a victim is required to offer some minimal word or gesture of objection and that lack of resistance must be equated with consent. Read more...
R v Park, 99 CCC (3d) 1 (Lamer): [20] Essentially, for there to be an “air of reality” to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, the totality of the evidence for the accused must be reasonably and realistically capable of supporting that defence. Although there is not, strictly speaking, a requirement that the evidence be corroborated, that Read more...
R v Ewanchuc, 1999 SCJ 10 (Major): [51] For instance, a belief that silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct constitutes consent is a mistake of law, and provides no defence: see R. v. M. (M.L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 3. Similarly, an accused cannot rely upon his purported belief that the complainant’s expressed lack of agreement to sexual touching in fact constituted Read more...
R v. Ewanchuk, (1999) 1 SCR 330 Para 36: “To be legally effective, consent must be freely given. Therefore, even if the complainant con- sented, or her conduct raises a reasonable doubt about her non-consent, circumstances may arise which call into question what factors prompted her apparent consent. The Code defines a series of conditions under which the law will Read more...