|
Criminal - Sexual Offences - Consent (3). R. v. J.H.C.
In R. v. J.H.C. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a Crown criminal appeal, here brought against "acquittals on counts of assault, choking and sexual assault".
Here the court considers that sexual consent applies to each sexual act:[27] There is no dispute in the law and there is no dispute between the parties that consent is required for separate sexual acts. This is, of course, consistent with s. 273.1(1) of the Criminal Code, which defines consent as the “voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question” (emphasis added). It is also consistent with the evolution of the law, which requires the “conscious agreement of the complainant to engage in every sexual act in a particular encounter”: R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 440, at para. 31. . R. v. Densmore
In R. v. Densmore (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal, this brought against a "conviction for sexual assault following a judge-alone trial".
Here the court considers sexual consent:[22] In this case, I do not accept that the trial judge’s phase-by-phase analysis constitutes legal error. Consent must be assessed in relation to each sexual act. Where an encounter evolves, a trier of fact must thus determine whether subjective consent existed at each phase and whether it was communicated. Further, as the appellant accepts, the order in which the trial judge made his findings is inconsequential as long as he properly applied the principle of reasonable doubt: R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 440, at para. 66; Vuradin, at para. 21.
|
