Continuing sexual contact after someone has said ‘no’ is, at a minimum, reckless conduct which fulfills the mens rea requirements of sexual assault. Major J. in Ewanchuk observed at para. 45, quoting from R v. Park, 1995 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836, at para. 39: ... the mens rea of sexual assault is not only satisfied when it is shown that the accused knew that the complainant was essentially saying “no”, but is also satisfied when it is shown that the accused knew the complainant was essentially not saying “yes”.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.