Criminal Defence · Sexual Offences (Criminal Code)

Sexual Assault Lawyer in Toronto

Reviewed by Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law · Toronto criminal defence · Last reviewed: July 2026

A sexual assault charge in Toronto can arise with almost no warning — an allegation made days, months, or even years after an encounter that felt entirely consensual, a complaint arising out of a relationship that ended badly, or a report following a night where memories are contested. From the moment police make contact, the stakes are extraordinary: your reputation, your family, your employment, your immigration status, and your liberty are all in play at once. It is a frightening position to be in, and it is one that demands a careful, professional defence.

At Kazandji Law, our criminal defence team represents people charged with sexual assault and related sexual offences across Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. This page explains, in plain language, what these charges actually involve under Canadian law in 2026 — what the Crown must prove, how consent works, the special evidentiary rules that apply only to sexual-offence trials, the consequences that follow a conviction, and the legitimate defences that shape the outcome of these cases. We have written it to inform, not to sensationalize; nothing here minimizes the seriousness of sexual violence or the experience of complainants. If you would rather talk it through now, call 647-588-3234 for a free, confidential consultation.

One point should be made at the outset. Sexual-offence cases are governed by a body of law that is more specialized than almost any other area of criminal practice — the definition of consent, the "reasonable steps" requirement, the rape-shield rules, and the records regime each carry their own procedures and their own line of Supreme Court authority. These cases are not defended by improvisation. They are defended by lawyers who know that law intimately and apply it methodically to the facts of a single file.

What is sexual assault under Canadian law?

Sexual assault is not defined by a list of specific acts. Instead, the Criminal Code creates the offence in section 271 and leaves "sexual assault" to be understood through the general definition of assault in section 265 combined with the requirement that the assault be sexual in nature.^[1] In practical terms, a sexual assault is an intentional application of force to another person, without their consent, in circumstances that violate the sexual integrity of the complainant.

The Supreme Court set out the framework in R. v. Chase (1987), holding that an assault is "sexual" where, viewed objectively in light of all the circumstances, the sexual or carnal context of the assault is visible to a reasonable observer.^[2] This can range from unwanted touching over clothing to the most serious forms of sexual violence. The offence covers a wide spectrum of conduct, and the specific facts — what was done, in what context, and whether consent was present — determine both whether an offence occurred and how serious it is.

The three levels of sexual assault

Canadian law recognizes three tiers of sexual assault, escalating in seriousness and in the maximum penalty available:

• Sexual assault — section 271. This is the base offence and by far the most commonly charged. It is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown chooses whether to proceed by the more serious indictable track or by summary conviction.^[3]
• Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, or causing bodily harm — section 272. This more serious offence applies where, in committing a sexual assault, the accused carries, uses, or threatens to use a weapon or imitation, threatens to harm a person other than the complainant, causes bodily harm, or acts with another person.^[4]
• Aggravated sexual assault — section 273. This is the most serious sexual assault offence. It applies where, in committing a sexual assault, the accused "wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant."^[5]

A great deal turns on which section is charged and, for section 271, on which way the Crown elects to proceed. An experienced lawyer identifies these two facts first, because they frame the maximum exposure, the trial forum, and the procedural rights that follow.

What the Crown must prove

Whatever the level, the Crown must prove several elements beyond a reasonable doubt. There are two components — the physical act (the actus reus) and the mental element (the mens rea):

• Intentional touching. The Crown must prove the accused intentionally touched the complainant. Accidental contact is not an assault.
• A sexual nature. The touching must be sexual, judged objectively under the Chase test.
• Absence of consent. The Crown must prove that the complainant did not, in fact, consent to the sexual activity in question. This is part of the physical act of the offence and is assessed from the complainant's subjective perspective — did she or he actually agree?
• The mental element as to consent. The Crown must prove that the accused either knew the complainant did not consent, or was reckless or wilfully blind to the absence of consent. This is where the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent — and the limits on it — comes into play, discussed below.

Each of these elements is a potential battleground. The defence's task is to test whether the Crown can actually prove every one of them to the criminal standard on the evidence in the particular case.

Consent: the centre of most sexual assault cases

Consent is the issue on which the majority of sexual assault trials turn, and Canadian law approaches it in a specific, structured way. It is not a matter of assumptions, silence, or "the vibe" of an encounter. It is defined by statute and refined by the Supreme Court.

How the Criminal Code defines consent (s. 273.1)

Section 273.1(1) defines consent, for the purposes of the sexual assault offences, as "the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question."^[6] Three features of that definition matter enormously in practice. First, consent must be voluntary. Second, it attaches to "the sexual activity in question" — consent to one act is not consent to another. Third, the leading authority, R. v. Ewanchuk (1999), holds that there is no defence of "implied consent" to sexual activity; consent must be actual and communicated, not inferred from a lack of resistance.^[7]

The Code also lists circumstances in which no consent is obtained as a matter of law. Under section 273.1(2), there is no consent where, among other things, agreement is expressed by someone other than the complainant, where the complainant is incapable of consenting, where the accused abuses a position of trust, power, or authority, or where the complainant expresses — by words or conduct — a lack of agreement or a revocation of agreement.^[6] Consent must also be present throughout: the Supreme Court held in R. v. J.A. (2011) that a person cannot consent in advance to sexual activity that occurs while they are unconscious.^[8]

The limits on "honest but mistaken belief" (s. 273.2)

An accused may raise the defence that he honestly believed the complainant was consenting. But this defence is tightly constrained. Section 273.2 provides that the belief is not a defence where it arose from the accused's self-induced intoxication, or from recklessness or wilful blindness, or where the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to him at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.^[9]

The Supreme Court sharpened this in R. v. Barton (2019), holding that the defence must be one of an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent — that is, the accused must point to something the complainant actually said or did that communicated agreement to the specific activity, not to what he assumed or hoped she wanted.^[10] The "reasonable steps" requirement means an accused cannot simply proceed on an assumption; the law expects genuine attention to whether the other person is, in fact, agreeing. For the defence, this is a demanding but important area: whether the evidence discloses communicated consent, and whether reasonable steps were taken, are fact-specific questions that a careful review of the disclosure can raise.

How the penalties work

The maximum penalty depends on which section is charged, and — for section 271 — on whether the Crown proceeds by indictment or summarily. It is important to read the table below carefully. The figures are maximums (and, in some cases, mandatory minimums that apply only in defined circumstances). They are not typical sentences. Sentencing in sexual assault cases is highly individualized and depends on the facts, the circumstances of the offender, and the applicable case law.^[3]

A few points that matter in practice:

• For adult-complainant sexual assault under s. 271, there is no mandatory minimum. Where the complainant is 16 or older, the court has a wide range of sentencing options and is not required to impose any minimum jail term.^[3] This does not mean these cases are treated lightly — serious sexual assaults commonly attract significant custodial sentences — but the outcome is driven by the facts, not a floor set by Parliament.
• The mandatory minimums in ss. 271, 272, and 273 are targeted. They apply where the complainant is under 16, or, for ss. 272 and 273, where a firearm is used in the specific circumstances the Code sets out (for example, a restricted or prohibited firearm, or a firearm used in association with a criminal organization).^[4][5]
• Aggravated sexual assault carries a maximum of life imprisonment. Because its maximum is so high, it — like the other sexual assault offences — carries serious collateral consequences under immigration law, discussed below.^[5]

Because sentencing ranges and the availability of particular dispositions can turn on recent appellate decisions and on the precise offence charged, the figures above should be treated as a framework, not as advice about any specific case. What sentence a given file realistically attracts is exactly the kind of question to put to a lawyer who has read the disclosure.

The special rules that apply only to sexual-offence trials

Sexual-offence prosecutions are governed by procedural and evidentiary rules that exist nowhere else in the criminal law. These rules protect complainants and the integrity of the trial, and they shape how a defence can be run. Understanding them is essential.

The rape-shield rule: prior sexual history (s. 276)

Section 276 — often called the "rape-shield" provision — restricts the use of evidence about a complainant's other sexual activity. Such evidence is never admissible to support the "twin myths": that because of the sexual nature of that other activity, the complainant is more likely to have consented, or is less worthy of belief.^[11] Evidence of other sexual activity may be admitted only through a defined procedure, and only where it is relevant to a specific issue, has significant probative value, and meets the statutory criteria. In R. v. Barton (2019) and R. v. Goldfinch (2019), the Supreme Court underscored that this procedure is mandatory and must be followed before any such evidence is led.^[10] For the defence, this means any legitimate line of questioning touching on prior sexual activity must be carefully assessed and properly brought — a task that requires real command of the section 276 framework.

The records regime (s. 278.1 to s. 278.94)

A separate regime governs access to and use of a complainant's private records — a category that includes medical, psychiatric, therapeutic, counselling, education, employment, child-welfare, and social-services records, personal journals, and other material in which the complainant has a reasonable expectation of privacy.^[12] Where the defence seeks production of such records held by a third party, it must bring an application under the Mills regime (ss. 278.1–278.91), named for the Supreme Court's decision upholding the scheme.^[13]

Since 2018, a further set of provisions (ss. 278.92–278.94) governs the admissibility of records already in the accused's possession, and of certain other evidence, requiring a screening application before that material can be used at trial. The Supreme Court largely upheld this scheme in R. v. J.J. (2022).^[14] The practical effect is that a sexual-offence defence must be planned around these procedures well in advance; evidence cannot simply be produced mid-trial. This is one of the clearest reasons these cases reward early, experienced preparation.

Publication bans (s. 486.4)

In sexual-offence proceedings, a court will ordinarily make an order under section 486.4 prohibiting publication of any information that could identify the complainant. Where the complainant, prosecutor, or a witness under 18 requests it, the order is mandatory.^[15] These bans protect complainants' privacy and encourage reporting. Recent amendments also require that a complainant be consulted and, in defined circumstances, permit variation of a ban at the complainant's request. Anyone involved in a sexual-offence case should understand that these publication restrictions carry the force of law.

Consequences beyond the sentence

A conviction for a sexual offence carries consequences that reach well beyond any jail term. For many clients, these collateral effects are the most serious and lasting part of the case, and they shape the defence strategy from the beginning.

The sex-offender registry (SOIRA)

A person convicted of a designated sexual offence may be ordered to register under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), which requires periodic reporting to police of address, employment, and other information for a fixed term or for life. Importantly, the law here changed recently. In R. v. Ndhlovu (2022), the Supreme Court struck down the provisions that made SOIRA registration automatic for everyone convicted of a sexual offence, holding that mandatory registration without any judicial discretion was unconstitutionally overbroad.^[16] In response, Parliament enacted Bill S-12, in force since October 2023, which restored judicial discretion in most cases: there is now a presumption of registration, but a sentencing judge may decline to impose an order where the offender establishes that it would be grossly disproportionate or would have no connection to SOIRA's purpose. Registration remains mandatory only in two narrow situations — certain child-victim offences prosecuted by indictment with a sentence of two years or more, and repeat sexual offenders.^[17] Because a SOIRA order is now something a court can be asked not to make in many cases, submissions on this point are a meaningful part of the defence.

Immigration consequences

For anyone who is not a Canadian citizen, the immigration stakes of a sexual-offence charge are severe and must be addressed from day one. Under section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible for "serious criminality" where they are convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years, or where a sentence of more than six months is imposed.^[18] Because sexual assault under s. 271 (by indictment) carries a maximum of 10 years — and ss. 272 and 273 carry far higher maximums — a conviction can render a permanent resident inadmissible and, in many cases, strip the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.^[18] The consequence can be a removal order with limited recourse. If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer immediately: it can fundamentally change the defence objectives, because avoiding a conviction (or the way in which a matter resolves) may matter as much as the sentence itself.

Other lasting effects

• Employment and professional licensing. A sexual-offence record appears on background and vulnerable-sector checks and can end or foreclose careers in healthcare, education, finance, and any regulated profession.
• Travel. A record can complicate or bar entry to the United States and other countries, which screen for such offences.
• DNA order. A conviction under s. 271 requires a mandatory DNA order as a primary designated offence, adding the person's DNA profile to the national databank.^[19]
• Reputation and family. Even before trial, bail conditions can remove a person from their home and restrict contact with family. The reputational harm of an allegation is real, which is one more reason to defend these cases properly.

The sexual assault court process in Toronto, step by step

Understanding the sequence of a sexual-offence case helps you see where a defence is built and why early advice matters. Most files move through the same stages, in the Ontario Court of Justice and, for more serious matters, the Superior Court of Justice.

1. Investigation, contact, and arrest

Many sexual-offence cases begin with a request from police to "come in and tell your side." This is a pivotal moment. You have the right to silence and the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter, and statements given without advice are frequently the most damaging evidence in the entire prosecution. Speak to a lawyer before you speak to police.

2. Bail

Sexual-offence charges usually proceed to a bail hearing rather than release at the station, and the conditions sought are often strict — no contact with the complainant, residence conditions, and sometimes removal from a shared home. Arriving with a workable release plan and suitable sureties can be decisive. Our bail lawyers prepare these plans carefully, because the conditions set early can shape a case for months.

3. Disclosure

Your lawyer obtains disclosure — the Crown's evidence. The Crown's constitutional duty to disclose all relevant material flows from the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Stinchcombe (1991).^[20] In a sexual-offence case, disclosure typically includes the complainant's statement (often video-recorded), police notes, any medical or forensic evidence, communications such as text messages, and any prior statements. A meticulous review of this material — testing the consistency, reliability, and completeness of the account — is where most sexual-offence defences begin.

4. Pre-trial applications and Crown pre-trial

Because of the specialized rules described above, sexual-offence cases often involve pre-trial applications: a section 276 application, a records application under the Mills or J.J. regimes, or Charter motions. These are scheduled well before trial. In parallel, a Crown pre-trial explores the strength of the case and whether it can be resolved without a trial, which in an appropriate case can mean a withdrawal, a plea to a lesser included offence, or a resolution that avoids the most serious consequences.

5. Trial

If the case does not resolve, it proceeds to trial, where the Crown must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Sexual assault trials frequently come down to the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, the analysis of consent, and any Charter issues affecting the admissibility of evidence. A contested sexual-offence case commonly takes many months — sometimes more than a year — from first appearance to verdict.

How Kazandji Law defends sexual assault charges

There is no single template for defending a sexual-offence case; the right strategy depends entirely on the disclosure in your specific file. The issues our lawyers most often examine include:

• Consent and reasonable steps. Does the evidence show that the complainant actually consented to the activity in question, or that the accused honestly and reasonably believed in communicated consent within the strict limits of s. 273.2? These are fact-specific questions that a close reading of the evidence can raise.
• Credibility and reliability. Sexual assault cases often turn on a careful, respectful assessment of the evidence — internal consistency, consistency with independent facts, and reliability of recollection. This is not about attacking a complainant's character; it is about whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence.
• Identity. Where identity is genuinely in issue — for example, in a stranger allegation — the reliability of any identification evidence is a central battleground.
• Charter breaches. Was the right to counsel under s. 10(b) respected? Was any statement taken voluntarily? Was there an unlawful search or arbitrary detention (ss. 8 and 9)? Where a breach is established, evidence may be excluded under s. 24(2) using the framework from R. v. Grant (2009).^[21]
• The elements of the offence. Can the Crown prove the touching was intentional and sexual, and that there was no consent, to the criminal standard? Every element must be established.
• The specialized rules. Properly bringing (or responding to) s. 276 and records applications can shape what evidence the trier of fact ever hears.

These are issues that may be available — not guarantees. No responsible lawyer promises a result before reviewing the disclosure, and no honest defence relies on myths or stereotypes about complainants. What we promise is a rigorous, respectful, and honest assessment, and a defence built around the specific facts and evidence in your case.

Common myths about sexual assault charges

"If the complainant doesn't show up or wants to drop it, the charge goes away." Not so. The decision to prosecute belongs to the Crown, not the complainant. A case can proceed even if the complainant is reluctant, and it is a serious offence to attempt to interfere with a witness. Never contact the complainant.

"Silence made me look guilty, so I should have explained." Explaining to police rarely helps and often supplies evidence the Crown was missing. You have the right to silence and the right to counsel — use both, and speak to a lawyer first.

"There was no weapon and no injury, so it can't be serious." Sexual assault under s. 271 is a serious offence carrying up to 10 years by indictment, mandatory DNA and potential registry consequences, and severe immigration exposure — regardless of whether force beyond the touching itself was involved.

"We were in a relationship, so consent is assumed." No. There is no such thing as blanket or ongoing consent by virtue of a relationship. Consent attaches to the specific activity and must be present at the time.

"I honestly thought it was fine, so I have a defence." Honest belief is only a defence within strict limits. It cannot rest on intoxication, recklessness, or wilful blindness, and the law requires that reasonable steps were taken to ascertain consent. Whether that defence is available is a technical, fact-specific question.

"It's my word against theirs, so it's hopeless." A single complainant's testimony can support a conviction, but the Crown still must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and credibility, reliability, consistency, and Charter issues all remain live. These cases are defensible.

What to do if you have been charged with a sexual offence

1. Say nothing to police beyond identifying yourself. Be polite, but exercise your right to silence. Do not try to explain or "clear it up."
2. Do not contact the complainant — directly or through anyone else. This is critical. Contact can lead to new charges and will damage your bail position.
3. Call a lawyer immediately. The earliest advice is the most valuable, especially before any statement.
4. Preserve evidence. Save messages, emails, photos, and anything that establishes the timeline or context. Do not delete anything — deletion can look like destruction of evidence.
5. Follow every bail condition exactly. A breach is a separate offence and can undo an otherwise strong defence.
6. Do not discuss the case online or in writing with friends or family, and stay off social media about it.
7. If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell your lawyer at once — it can change the entire strategy.

Why choose Kazandji Law for your sexual offence defence

Kazandji Law is a Toronto criminal and family law firm built on a proactive, no-nonsense approach with a genuine personal touch. Sexual-offence cases reward exactly that combination: the specialized knowledge to run a s. 276 or records application, a working command of the consent and reasonable-steps jurisprudence, the discipline to test credibility and reliability respectfully and effectively, and the judgment to know when to fight and when to resolve. We bring that preparation to every file, whether it is a single-count allegation or a serious matter under s. 272 or s. 273.

We appear in the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court locations across the Greater Toronto Area — including the criminal courts in downtown Toronto — and we defend sexual-offence charges wherever they arise: downtown Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Brampton, Hamilton, Oakville, and beyond. You can meet our team, review our case results, and explore our full range of sexual offence defence services — including sexual assault, sexual exploitation, voyeurism, and indecent exposure. Related conduct is addressed on our assault offences and false accusations pages.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and aggravated sexual assault?

They are the three levels of the offence. Sexual assault (s. 271) is the base offence. Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, or causing bodily harm (s. 272) is more serious and carries a higher maximum. Aggravated sexual assault (s. 273) applies where the accused wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of the complainant, and carries a maximum of life imprisonment. Which section is charged shapes the entire case.

What does consent mean in a sexual assault case?

Under section 273.1 of the Criminal Code, consent is the voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question. It must be actual, not assumed, and it can be revoked at any time. There is no "implied consent" in Canadian law, a person who is unconscious cannot consent, and consent obtained through an abuse of trust, power, or authority is not valid. Consent to one activity is not consent to another.

Is "I thought they consented" a defence?

Only within strict limits. An honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent is not a defence if it arose from self-induced intoxication, recklessness, or wilful blindness, or if the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent (section 273.2). Following R. v. Barton, the belief must be based on what the complainant actually said or did — not on assumptions. Whether the defence is available depends closely on the facts.

What is the maximum penalty for sexual assault?

For sexual assault under s. 271 where the complainant is 16 or older, the maximum is 10 years by indictment or 18 months on summary conviction, with no mandatory minimum. Where the complainant is under 16, higher maximums and mandatory minimums apply. Sexual assault with a weapon (s. 272) carries up to 14 years (life where a firearm is used in defined circumstances), and aggravated sexual assault (s. 273) carries up to life imprisonment. These are maximums, and actual sentences depend on the facts.

Is there a mandatory minimum jail sentence for sexual assault?

Not for sexual assault under s. 271 where the complainant is 16 or older — in that situation there is no mandatory minimum, and the court has broad discretion. Mandatory minimums apply where the complainant is under 16, and, for ss. 272 and 273, where a firearm is used in the specific circumstances the Code sets out. This does not mean adult-complainant cases are treated lightly; serious sexual assaults often attract significant custodial sentences.

Can I be charged years after the alleged incident?

Yes. There is no limitation period for indictable sexual offences in Canada, so charges can be laid many years after the alleged events. Historical allegations bring their own issues — the passage of time, the availability of evidence, and the reliability of memory — which an experienced lawyer will assess carefully.

What happens if the complainant wants to drop the charges?

The decision to prosecute belongs to the Crown, not the complainant, so a case can continue even if the complainant no longer wishes to proceed. It is also a serious offence to try to influence a witness. If the complainant contacts you, do not respond and tell your lawyer immediately.

Can evidence about the complainant's past be used at trial?

Only in limited circumstances and only through a strict procedure. Section 276 (the "rape-shield" rule) prohibits using a complainant's other sexual activity to suggest they were more likely to consent or are less believable. Any legitimate use of such evidence requires a formal application and a judicial ruling before it can be led. There is also a separate regime governing access to a complainant's private records.

Will I have to register as a sex offender if convicted?

Possibly, but the law changed after R. v. Ndhlovu (2022) and Bill S-12 (2023). There is now a presumption of registration under SOIRA, but a sentencing judge retains discretion not to make an order in many cases where it would be grossly disproportionate or serve no purpose. Registration remains mandatory only in narrow situations, such as certain child-victim offences prosecuted by indictment and repeat offenders. Submissions on this point are part of the defence.

How does a sexual assault conviction affect immigration status?

The consequences can be severe. Under section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a conviction for an offence punishable by a maximum of at least 10 years — which includes sexual assault by indictment — can make a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible for serious criminality, potentially without a right of appeal. If you are not a Canadian citizen, raise this with your lawyer at the very start; it can change the entire defence strategy.

Do I need a lawyer for a sexual offence charge?

Yes — few charges make experienced counsel more important. Sexual-offence cases involve specialized rules (consent, reasonable steps, s. 276, the records regime), severe and lasting consequences, and outcomes that often turn on technical and procedural detail. The value of a knowledgeable lawyer is greatest early, before any statement and before key applications are scheduled.

How much does a sexual assault lawyer cost?

Fees depend on the seriousness of the charge, the complexity of the evidence, whether experts or pre-trial applications are needed, and whether the matter resolves or proceeds to trial. Kazandji Law offers a free initial consultation and will give you a clear picture of the process and the likely cost before you decide anything.

Sources & legal references

1. Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46), s. 265 (assault) and s. 271 (sexual assault): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-271.html.
2. R. v. Chase, 1987 CanLII 23 (SCC) (test for whether an assault is "sexual"): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1987/1987canlii23.
3. Criminal Code, s. 271 (sexual assault; hybrid offence — max 10 years by indictment / 18 months summary; 14 years and 2 years less a day, with mandatory minimums, where the complainant is under 16): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-271.html.
4. Criminal Code, s. 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm; max 14 years, life where a firearm is used in the defined circumstances, with mandatory minimums in defined cases): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-272.html.
5. Criminal Code, s. 273 (aggravated sexual assault — "wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life"; max life imprisonment, with mandatory minimums in defined firearm and complainant-under-16 cases): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-273.html.
6. Criminal Code, s. 273.1 (meaning of consent; circumstances in which no consent is obtained): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-273.1.html.
7. R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 CanLII 711 (SCC) (no defence of implied consent; consent must be actual): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii711.
8. R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (no advance consent to activity occurring while unconscious): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc28.
9. Criminal Code, s. 273.2 (where belief in consent is not a defence — self-induced intoxication, recklessness or wilful blindness, and failure to take reasonable steps): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-273.2.html.
10. R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (honest but mistaken belief must be in communicated consent; s. 276 procedure is mandatory): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc33.
11. Criminal Code, s. 276 (evidence of complainant's other sexual activity — the "twin myths" and admissibility procedure): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-276.html.
12. Criminal Code, s. 278.1 (definition of "record" for the production regime): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-278.1.html.
13. R. v. Mills, 1999 CanLII 637 (SCC) (upholding the third-party records production scheme, ss. 278.1–278.91): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii637.
14. R. v. J.J., 2022 SCC 28 (upholding the ss. 278.92–278.94 admissibility regime for records in the accused's possession): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2022/2022scc28.
15. Criminal Code, s. 486.4 (publication ban protecting the identity of complainants and certain witnesses in sexual-offence proceedings): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-486.4.html.
16. R. v. Ndhlovu, 2022 SCC 38 (mandatory SOIRA registration without judicial discretion held unconstitutional under Charter s. 7): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2022/2022scc38.
17. Sex Offender Information Registration Act (S.C. 2004, c. 10) and Bill S-12, S.C. 2023, c. 28 (in force Oct. 2023 — restoring judicial discretion; presumption of registration with limited mandatory categories): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-8.7; justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/s12.html.
18. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27), s. 36 (serious criminality — inadmissibility for an offence with a maximum of at least 10 years or a sentence over six months) and ss. 63–64 (limits on appeal): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-36.html.
19. Criminal Code, s. 487.051 (mandatory DNA order for primary designated offences, including s. 271): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-487.051.html.
20. R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC) (Crown's duty of disclosure): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii45.
21. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (three-part test for exclusion of evidence under Charter s. 24(2)): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32.

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Canadian and Ontario sexual-offence law and is not legal advice. Laws, penalties, and prosecutorial policies change, and how they apply depends on the specific facts of your case. Nothing here is intended to minimize the seriousness of sexual offences or the experience of complainants. For advice about your situation, contact a lawyer. Contacting Kazandji Law does not create a solicitor-client relationship until a retainer is signed.