View source for Honest But Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent

[[fr:Croyance_sincère_mais_erronée_au_consentement_communiqué]]
{{Currency2|January|2018}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderDefences}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Consent in Sexual Offences}}
The defence of honest but mistaken belief of communicated consent creates a third alternative to the choice between whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual contact.<ref>
Note: the older terminology "honest but mistaken belief in consent" has the same meaning. see R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2019] 2 SCR 579, at para 92, <https://canlii.ca/t/j0fqj#par92>, retrieved on 2023-09-24</ref>

A believe in consent is a matter of the state of mind of the accused.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dippel|fltq2|2011 ABCA 129 (CanLII)|281 CCC (3d) 33}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|fltq2|13}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nguyen|h3h0n|2017 SKCA 30 (CanLII)|348 CCC (3d) 238}}{{perSKCA|Caldwell JA}}{{atL|h3h0n|8}}<br>
</ref>
The defence of honest but mistaken belief "rests on the accused's subjective perception of that factual situation" of non-consent.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Pappajohn|1mjv4|1980 CanLII 13 (SCC)|[1980] 2 SCR 120}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (in dissent){{atp|157}}<br> 
{{supra1|Nguyen}}{{atL|h3h0n|8}}<br>
</ref>

At common law, the defence is a form of "mistake of fact", which if true, would have rendered the conduct lawful.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Pappajohn|1mjv4|1980 CanLII 13 (SCC)|[1980] 2 SCR 120}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}{{Atps|134, 139}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|JA|flkm1|2011 SCC 28 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 SCR 440}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|flkm1|48}}<br>
</ref>

The defence is available where there is evidence of a "denial of consent, lack of consent or incapacity to consent" which is interpreted as consent, as well as "evidence of ambiguity or equivocality" showing the possibility of mistaken belief without being wilfully blind or reckless.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Esau|1fqzb|1997 CanLII 312 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 777}}{{perSCC-H|Major J}}{{AtsL|1fqzb|79|}}, {{AtsL-np|1fqzb|88|}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Davis|1fql7|1999 CanLII 638 (SCC)|[1999] 3 SCR 759}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|1fql7|86}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ewanchuk|1fqpm|1999 CanLII 711 (SCC)|[1999] 1 SCR 330}}{{perSCC-H|Major J}}{{atL|1fqpm|65}}<br>
</ref>
Nor can it be "tainted by an awareness of any of the factors enumerated in ss. 273.1(2) and 273.2."<ref>
{{supra1|Ewanchuk}}{{atL|1fqpm|65}}<br>
</ref>

The defence is a denial of the ''mens rea'' of an offence of sexual assault.<ref>
{{supra1|Davis}}{{AtL|1fql7|80}}
</ref>

Thus, the defence requires:<ref>
{{ibid1|Davis}}{{atsL|1fql7|81|}}, {{atsL-np|1fql7|86|}}<br>
{{supra1|Esau}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{atL|1fqzb|63}} - in dissent, but affirmed by majority in ''Davis''{{AtL|1fql7|86}}, ("There must be evidence not only of non-consent and belief in consent, but in addition evidence capable of explaining how the accused could honestly have mistaken the complainant's lack of consent as consent. Otherwise, the defence cannot reasonably arise. There must, in short, be evidence of a situation of ambiguity in which the accused could honestly have misapprehended that the complainant was consenting to the sexual activity in question. ")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Delacruz|gp32w|2016 ABQB 187 (CanLII)|AJ No 311}}{{perABQB|Ross J}}{{atL|gp32w|87}}
</ref>
# evidence that the accused believed the complainant was consenting (ie. the belief must be held "honestly", considering the objective factors under s. 273.2(a))<ref>
{{supra1|Nguyen}}{{atL|h3h0n|10}}<br></ref> 
# evidence that the complainant in fact refused consent, did not consent, or was incapable of consenting; and 
# evidence of a state of ambiguity which explains how lack of consent could have been honestly understood by the defendant as consent, assuming he was not wilfully blind or reckless to whether the complainant was consenting, that is, assuming that he paid appropriate attention to the need for consent and to  whether she was consenting or not.

It is not sufficient to simply have a subjective belief of consent.<ref>
{{supra1|Ewanchuk}}{{atsL|1fqpm|46|, 47}}<br>
</ref>

; Positive Evidence of Consent is Necessary
An accused cannot simply assert a belief in consent to raise the defence. It must be supported by the "some degree of other evidence or circumstances."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Osolin|1frvz|1993 CanLII 54 (SCC)|[1993] 4 SCR 595}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1frvz|139}} ("The bare assertion by the accused that he believed in consent is not enough to raise the defence of honest but mistaken belief. The assertion must be “supported to some degree by other evidence or circumstances”:... . The support may come from the accused or some other sources; on this point I agree with Cory J’s resolution of the confusion which existed in the earlier cases. But the support must exist. As Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest put it, a “facile mouthing of some easy phrase of excuse will not suffice” (citation omitted).")<br>
</ref>

; Silence is Not Consent
It is not acceptable to rely on a "belief that silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct constitutes consent."<ref>
{{ibid1|Ewanchuk}}{{atL|1fqpm|51}}<br>
</ref>
Such finding is a reversible error of law.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|M(ML)|1frst|1994 CanLII 77 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 3}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}<br>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}
===Reasonable Steps===
The accused must have taken "reasonable steps to ascertain consent, and must believe that the complainant communicated her consent to engage in the sexual activity in question."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|JA|flkm1|2011 SCC 28 (CanLII)|[2011] 2 SCR 440}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|flkm1|48}}<br></ref>

What constitutes "reasonable steps depends on the particulars circumstances of the case."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Crangle|2b6nr|2010 ONCA 451 (CanLII)|256 CCC (3d) 234}}{{perONCA|Goudge JA}}{{atL|2b6nr|29}} leave to SCC refused, [2010] SCCA 300<br>
</ref>

This inquiry by the accused into consent is to occur ''before'' the sexual act commences.<ref>
{{supra1|Darrach}}{{at|90}}<br>
</ref>
Escalation in the sexual activity requires further inquiry.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ewanchuk|1fqpm|1999 CanLII 711 (SCC)|[1999] 1 SCR 330}}{{perSCC-H|Major J}}{{atL|1fqpm|99}}<br>
</ref>

The court must ascertain "the circumstances known to the accused" at the time and then ask whether "a reasonable man was aware of the same circumstances" would have taken further steps before proceeding.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Malcolm|1flcg|2000 MBCA 77 (CanLII)|147 CCC (3d) 34}}{{perMBCA|Helper JA}}{{AtL|1flcg|24}}, leave to SCC refused<br>
</ref>

The assessment is from an "objective point of view" but one that is "informed by the circumstances subjectively known to the accused."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Alboukhari|g0qcv|2013 ONCA 581 (CanLII)|310 OAC 305}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}}{{atL|g0qcv|42}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|RG|23264|1994 CanLII 8752 (BC CA)|38 CR (4th) 123}}{{perBCCA|Wood JA}}{{atL|23264|29}}<br>
</ref>

This defence is available in circumstances where the victim was unconscious, asleep or otherwise incapable of consenting but appeared awake and to consent from the perspective of the accused.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Crespo|gs1fd|2016 ONCA 454 (CanLII)|337 CCC (3d) 439}}{{perONCA|Miller JA}}{{atL|gs1fd|11}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Esau|1fqzb|1997 CanLII 312 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 777}}{{perSCC-H|Major JA}}{{atsL|1fqzb|17| to 25}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Irreconcilable Versions of Events===
Where there are diametrically opposite versions of events between the victim's evidence and the accused's evidence are not collectively reconcilable, then the case is determined by conventional credibility analysis and mistaken belief of consent is ''not'' to be put to the jury.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Davis|1fql7|1999 CanLII 638 (SCC)|[1999] 3 SCR 759}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|1fql7|85}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Somers|24j4p|2009 ONCA 567 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Procedural Considerations===
There must first be an "air of reality" before the defence can be considered.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Davis|1fql7|1999 CanLII 638 (SCC)|[1999] 3 SCR 759}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|1fql7|81}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Barton|h4l20|2017 ABCA 216 (CanLII)|354 CCC (3d) 245}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atsL|h4l20|240| to 264}}<br>
</ref>

In almost all cases, the accused will have to testify to establish a mistaken belief.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Slater|1l3jz|2005 SKCA 87 (CanLII)|201 CCC (3d) 85}}{{perSKCA|Jackson JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ross|frj5p|2012 NSCA 56 (CanLII)|290 CCC (3d) 555}}{{perNSCA|Bryson JA}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}