Bart Rosborough

Crown appeal from an acquittal for sexual assault arising from progressively more intimate sexual touching during a purported job interview.

The Court held that consent for the actus reus is the complainant’s subjective state of mind and that there is no defence of implied consent in Canadian law.

The only potentially available mens rea defence was honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, but there was no air of reality to that defence on the accepted facts, particularly in light of repeated verbal refusals.

The appeal was allowed, a conviction entered under s. 686(4), and the matter remanded for sentencing.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his niece.

During deliberations, the jury asked for an explanation of the guideline on evidence and reasonable doubt.

The trial judge's recharge suggested the jury had to choose between the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that this either/or approach was incorrect as it excluded the third alternative: that the jury might not believe the accused but still have a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was arrested for impaired driving and informed of his right to counsel, but was not advised of the availability of free and immediate duty counsel.

He refused to comply with a breathalyser demand and was convicted.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the failure to inform the appellant of the existence and availability of duty counsel violated his rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court excluded the evidence of his refusal under s. 24(2) of the Charter and entered an acquittal.

The accused fled from police after committing a provincial traffic offence and entered an apartment.

The pursuing officer entered the apartment without a warrant, arrested the accused, and subsequently charged him with impaired driving and other offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law hot pursuit exception to the sanctity of the home extends to provincial offences, provided there is a statutory power of arrest without a warrant.

The Court also found no violation of the accused's Charter rights under sections 7 and 9, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when fleeing police to escape arrest.

The appellant was hospitalized following a car accident and blood samples were taken for medical purposes.

The police obtained the blood-alcohol analysis results in violation of the appellant's s. 8 Charter rights.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) and acquitted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge misapplied s. 24(2) principles.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.