Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a crucial case involving circumstantial evidence in a sexual assault trial, highlighting issues surrounding consent and the evidentiary standards for intoxication.
Key Points Discussed:
Circumstantial Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases: During the trial, the judge inferred that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent based solely on her alcohol consumption, despite no direct evidence addressing her ability to consent. This conviction was overturned, as the circumstantial evidence of intoxication alone didn’t meet the legal threshold without expert testimony or direct evidence about the complainant’s capacity.
Law of Circumstantial Evidence in Canada: Under Canadian law, if circumstantial evidence is consistent with other reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt, it cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard was applied here, leading to the case’s dismissal.
Complexity of Consent and Intoxication: This case underscores the challenges in sexual assault trials where intoxication impacts consent. Requiring expert evidence on intoxication in every case complicates proceedings, making trials longer and more costly.
Why This Case Matters: The case raises significant questions about the necessity of expert evidence in cases involving intoxication and consent. A Supreme Court ruling on this issue could have clarified evidentiary standards, helping Crown counsel, complainants, and defendants understand what types of evidence are necessary when intoxication might impact consent.
