1.
Bodies
B. Sexual Assault
Leading
Cases
R. v. Ewanchuk [1998] A.J.
No. 150,
http://www.canlii.ca/ab/cas/abca/1998/1998abca52.html
The Alberta Court of
Appeal acquitted a man accused of sexual assault by relying on sexual myths and
stereotypes about women.
R. v. Ewanchuk [1999] S.C.J.
No. 10, Supreme Court of Canada
http://www.canlii.ca/ca/cas/scc/1999/1999scc11.html
The Supreme Court
overturned the lower court decision by finding that “no means no”, there is no
such thing as implied consent when it comes to sexual assault, and reliance on
myths and stereotypes is a violation of the section 15(1) right to equality.
Jane Doe v. Board of
Commissioners of Police for the
R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme, [1991]
2 S.C.R. 577
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1991/1991scc68.html
The "rape-shield" provisions of the Criminal Code
violate the section 7 and 11(d) rights of persons on trial for a sexual
offence.
R. v. Mills [1999] S.C.J.
No. 68
http://www.canlii.ca/ca/cas/scc/1999/1999scc73.html
The impugned section
of the Criminal Code governing the production of complainant’s records to the
accused was upheld as constitutional.
The Supreme Court found that the section properly balanced the privacy
rights of the complainant with the right of the accused to make full answer and
defence.
R. v. Darrach 2000 SCC 46
http://www.canlii.ca/ca/cas/scc/2000/2000scc46.html
Section 276(1) does not violate an
accused’s section 7 or 11(d) rights. It
is an evidentiary rule that only excludes irrelevant material.