This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault where the accused ejaculated on the complainant's back without her explicit consent, following consensual sexual activity.
The complainant alleged a condition of consent was constant condom use, which the accused denied hearing, believing his actions were consensual based on a general "everything else was fine" agreement.
The court found both the complainant and the accused credible, leading to a reasonable doubt regarding the explicit condom condition.
The central legal issue was whether the accused's honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent constituted a valid defence, specifically whether he took reasonable steps to ascertain consent under section 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code.
The court concluded that the accused's prior conversation about boundaries, where condom use was not explicitly forbidden in his account, amounted to reasonable steps.
It was determined that the act of masturbating and ejaculating on the back was not a fundamentally distinct sexual act requiring new consent.
Consequently, the accused was found not guilty.