sexual assault

Appeal Watch: SCC to Speak on Stereotypes and Common Sense in R v Tsang

Trial judges have a unique ability to assess evidence in a criminal trial: they see the witness, hear the testimony, and decide whether someone is believable. These findings are sometimes informed by intangibles, things that any person would struggle to articulate. Where a judge fails to articulate the evidence supporting a negative credibility finding, they […]

Common Sense, Speculative Reasoning, and Judicial Notice: SCC Grants Leave in R v Kruk

Content Warning: This article includes details about an allegation of sexual assault that may evoke strong emotions. In R v Kruk, 2022 BCCA 18 [Kruk], the British Columbia Court of Appeal ("BCCA") noted that "[relying] on … life experience to assess the credibility of witnesses is a daily and appropriate exercise for trial judges" (Kruk, […]

R v Nahanee: Notices and Further Submissions in Contested Sentencing Hearings

No Still Means No: Clarifying the 5-4 Split in R v Kirkpatrick

Contemporaneousness of Sexual Consent in R v AE

Incapacity Precludes - not Vitiates - Consent in R. v. G.F.

Assessing Credibility of Survivors: The ONCA Debunking Rape Myths and Stereotypes in R v Steele

R v Kirkpatrick: Can Ignorance Amount to Deceit When It Involves a Failure to Wear a Condom?

SCC Denies Leave to Appeal Vicarious Liability Finding Against St. John’s Archdiocese in Sexual Abuse Scandal

Believing the Intoxicated Survivor: R v Kishayinew and the Nuanced Test for Sexual Assault