R v Ewanchuk, 1999 SCJ 10 (Major): [37] The words of Fish J.A. in Saint-Laurent v. Hétu, [1994] R.J.Q. 69 (C.A.), at p. 82, aptly describe the concern which the trier of fact must bear in mind when evaluating the actions of a complainant who claims to have been under fear, fraud or duress: “Consent” is . . . stripped 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...
R v David – 2002 OJ No 3455 (CA – Simmons): [48] I agree that it would have been preferable had the trial judge instructed the jury that they could consider the s. 16 defence only if they were satisfied that the accused committed the act forming the subject matter of a particular charge and, if it was necessary that Read more...
R v Harvey – 2014 BCSC 1692 (Humpheries): [16] In the normal course, where the accused raises NCRMD, the court will be required to consider whether the Crown has proven the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. If it has, the court considers whether it has been established, on a balance of probabilities by the party that raised the issue, Read more...
R v. Cote – 2018 ONCA 820 (Court): [38] The trial judge admitted only the second part of Cote’s evidence, that he had never seen McQuhae lose his temper, because it was evidence of McQuhae’s peaceful disposition. For the same reason, the trial judge admitted the evidence of Starr to the effect that McQuhae was generally slow to anger, and Read more...