The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against an intimate partner, and pleaded guilty to attempting to obstruct justice by instructing the complainant to recant her evidence.
The trial focused primarily on whether sexual intercourse in the complainant’s bedroom occurred without consent following a relationship breakdown triggered by the accused’s infidelity.
The court applied the governing principles on consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent under the Criminal Code and leading authorities including Ewanchuk and J.A. The complainant’s evidence that she verbally and physically resisted sexual advances was accepted as credible, while the accused’s claim of consensual intercourse based on prior relationship dynamics and non-verbal cues was rejected.
The court found the Crown proved sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt but held that the assault and uttering threats allegations were not established to the required standard.
