Youth criminal prosecution alleging sexual assault and sexual interference arising from sexual intercourse between two young persons in a vehicle after the complainant consumed alcohol and marijuana.
The Crown argued the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication and memory impairment.
Applying the capacity‑to‑consent framework from G.F. and the W.(D.) credibility analysis, the court found the accused’s evidence credible and concluded the complainant had the ability to understand the sexual activity, its nature, the identity of her partner, and her ability to refuse.
The court determined the complainant was not incapacitated and had in fact consented to the sexual activity.
Both charges were dismissed.
