All Sexual Assault -s.271

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 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...

R v GF – 2019 ONCA 493 (Pardu):     [25] I do not agree that the nature of the account given by the complainant in itself is demonstrably incompatible with incapacity to consent to sexual relations, or that the trial judge failed to consider this evidence. The complainant’s intermittent awareness, her waking from sleep to find sexual acts performed Read more...