Robson Crim Legal Blog

In this blog, we will summarize two recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) cases regarding Mr. Big Operations (MBO), as well as indicate how we believe the new rules from these cases would apply to an older MBO case.

In lieu of the "Mr. Big" seminar that was to be presented, we have created a trilogy of blogs. The first of which will: outline the typical steps taken by the police during a Mr. Big Operation (MBO), describe the concerns Dr. Khoday had prior to recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions regarding MBOs, and identify how MBOs avoid Charter concerns and how Canadians' rights are protected from MBOs by the Charter.

Over the past decade the law of sexual assault and legislative changes governing this section of the law has evolved considerably, but this does not mean that the results are being shown in the courtroom. It has been over ten years since R v Ewanchuk, and a positive note to come out of the decision in this case is that the Supreme Court of Canada cemented that there is no defence of implied consent to sexual assault in Canadian law.

Unfortunately, in many of the decisions in sexual assault cases the reasons that some trial judges have relied on are completely unsavoury and flat out rude and false. They add insult to injury by giving breath to the twin-myth reasoning that is rampant in sexual assault cases and try to blend stereotypes about women into the law.

At the heart of sexual assault cases is the presence or absence of consent, and whether the consent was freely given. Unfortunately, this defence often relies on the complainant’s prior sexual activities and can make trial for sexual assault victims an even more humiliating and demeaning experience then it needs to be. This defence often relies upon the twin myth reasoning, which is the idea that complainants with a prior sexual history are firstly more likely to have consent