The appellant was convicted of rape.
He appealed on the ground that the trial judge failed to put the defence of mistake of fact to the jury.
The appellant claimed the complainant consented, while the complainant testified she was raped over her protests and struggles.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a trial judge is only required to put a defence to the jury if there is some evidence that conveys a sense of reality to it.
In this case, the conflicting testimonies presented a simple issue of consent versus no consent, with no evidentiary basis to support a mistaken but honest belief in consent.
