The defendant, an Uber driver, was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact, while the defendant claimed consensual interaction or an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

The defendant's testimony was found to be inconsistent, illogical, and not credible.

The complainant's testimony was found to be clear, candid, and credible.

The court concluded that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, thereby negating the defence of honest but mistaken belief.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assault, sexual assault, and breach of probation.

The court acquitted the accused of assault, finding her actions were reflexive and lacked the necessary mens rea.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and breach of probation, concluding that the Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea for sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defense of honest but mistaken belief in consent due to the use of force and lack of reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The defendant, Brian Landry, was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible due to internal inconsistencies and implausibility.

The complainant's testimony was largely accepted, despite some minor inconsistencies.

The Crown proved that the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant by forcibly inserting fingers into her vagina and engaging in vaginal and anal intercourse without consent.

However, the Crown failed to prove bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no tangible physical or psychological injury established.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, but acquitted of the bodily harm component.

The accused was charged with first degree murder in the death of an Indigenous woman and sex worker found dead in his hotel room with an 11 cm wound in her vaginal wall.

At trial, the accused testified at length about prior sexual activity with the deceased without having made an application under the s. 276 regime of the Criminal Code, and the jury was not given any limiting instruction on the permissible uses of that evidence.

The jury acquitted the accused of both first degree murder and the included offence of unlawful act manslaughter.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial on first degree murder.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred by failing to comply with the mandatory s. 276 regime, and that the resulting failure to inoculate the jury against mistakes of law related to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent warranted a new trial on unlawful act manslaughter.

However, a new trial on first degree murder was not warranted as the errors did not materially bear on the murder acquittal, which turned on a battle of expert evidence on whether a sharp object was used.

The dissent would have upheld the Court of Appeal's order of a new trial on both murder and manslaughter.