R v. L.S., 2017 ONCA 685, 2017 OJ No. 4586 (OCA – Doherty): [81] The plain meaning of the words of ss. 276(1) and (2) is consistent with the purpose of those sections. The phrase “sexual activity” is not qualified in either section. Evidence that two people were in a relationship involving regular consensual sexual intercourse is clearly evidence that Read more...
R v Cain, [2017] N.S.J. No 512 (CA – Fichaud): [39] I adopt the following explanation of the contextual exception from Justice Paciocco’s article which Mr. Cain cites as seminal (above, para. 33). Paciocco, J.A. (as he now is) said: While the basic rule is simple enough, there are numerous exceptions to that basic rule that complicate the law. An Read more...
