In a sexual assault trial arising from a first in-person encounter after online communications, the Crown alleged non-consensual sexual activity on three theories: forceful conduct during oral sex, intentional anal penetration, and continuation of intercourse after withdrawal of consent.
The court reviewed the law of sexual assault, subjective consent, withdrawal of consent, and the accused's mens rea under the Criminal Code and the governing authorities on consent and credibility.
Applying the W.(D.) framework and the principles in Ewanchuk and related cases, the court found a reasonable doubt on whether the alleged head touching occurred, whether the anal penetration was intentional, and whether the complainant subjectively ceased consenting to the subsequent vaginal intercourse.
The accused was acquitted.
