The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision setting aside a sexual assault conviction and ordering a new trial.
The majority of the Supreme Court held that the trial judge's reasons, read in context, clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not subjectively consent to any sexual activity with the respondent.
The Court found that the circumstantial evidence — including the complainant's emotional state, her attempts to leave, and her reaction upon recovering from memory blackouts — reasonably permitted only one inference: absence of consent.
The majority agreed with the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal and restored the conviction.
The sentence appeal was remanded back to the Court of Appeal.
