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 SCJ 10 (Major): [56] In Esau, supra, at para. 15, the Court stated that, “before a court should consider honest but mistaken belief or instruct a jury on it there must be some plausible evidence in support so as to give an air of reality to the defence”. See also R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. Read more...