LEAF logo
DONATE
MENU
LEAF logo

Contact

DONATE
Informations en français
  • About
    • Our Story
    • Mission & Vision
    • Staff
    • Board
    • Law Program Committee
    • FAQs
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Student Positions
  • Cases and Law Reform
    • Our Work
    • Issue Areas
      • Reproductive Justice
      • Indigenous Rights and Law
      • Identity-Based Oppression
      • Hate Speech and Online Hate
      • Sexual Assault and Consent Law
      • Gender-Based Violence
      • Access to Justice
      • Workplace Rights
      • Socio-Economic Rights
      • Family Law
    • Search Cases & Submissions
    • Current Work
      • Basic Income Project
      • LEAF’s Feminist Strategic Litigation Project
      • LEAF’s Technology-Facilitated Violence (TFV) Project
      • National Abortion Access Framework
    • Past Projects
    • Legal Representation Referrals
  • Education
    • Overview
    • Workshops, trainings & webinars
    • Factsheets & infographics
  • News & Events
    • Search News & Events
    • Events
  • Publications
    • Search Publications
    • Working Papers
    • Reports
    • Annual Reports
  • Regional Branches
    • Overview
    • LEAF Edmonton
    • LEAF Halifax
    • LEAF Hamilton
    • LEAF Kingston
    • LEAF Ottawa
    • LEAF Québec
    • LEAF Thunder Bay
    • LEAF Toronto
    • LEAF Windsor
  • Get Involved
    • Ways to Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Join a Branch
    • Volunteer
    • Become a LEAF Pro Bono Lawyer
    • Partner with LEAF
Menu
  • About
    • Our Story
    • Mission & Vision
    • Staff
    • Board
    • Law Program Committee
    • FAQs
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Student Positions
  • Cases and Law Reform
    • Our Work
    • Issue Areas
      • Reproductive Justice
      • Indigenous Rights and Law
      • Identity-Based Oppression
      • Hate Speech and Online Hate
      • Sexual Assault and Consent Law
      • Gender-Based Violence
      • Access to Justice
      • Workplace Rights
      • Socio-Economic Rights
      • Family Law
    • Search Cases & Submissions
    • Current Work
      • Basic Income Project
      • LEAF’s Feminist Strategic Litigation Project
      • LEAF’s Technology-Facilitated Violence (TFV) Project
      • National Abortion Access Framework
    • Past Projects
    • Legal Representation Referrals
  • Education
    • Overview
    • Workshops, trainings & webinars
    • Factsheets & infographics
  • News & Events
    • Search News & Events
    • Events
  • Publications
    • Search Publications
    • Working Papers
    • Reports
    • Annual Reports
  • Regional Branches
    • Overview
    • LEAF Edmonton
    • LEAF Halifax
    • LEAF Hamilton
    • LEAF Kingston
    • LEAF Ottawa
    • LEAF Québec
    • LEAF Thunder Bay
    • LEAF Toronto
    • LEAF Windsor
  • Get Involved
    • Ways to Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Join a Branch
    • Volunteer
    • Become a LEAF Pro Bono Lawyer
    • Partner with LEAF
Home / Cases and Law Reform / Search Cases & Submissions

Case Summary

R. v. Ewanchuk (1999)

This case concerned whether there was a defence of “implied consent” in sexual assault law. 

LEAF, in partnership with DisAbled Women’s Network Canada (DAWN) intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Facts 

The 17-year-old complainant attended a job interview in Steve Ewanchuk’s van. Mr. Ewanchuk then invited her to see his work in the trailer behind the van. The complainant agreed, but purposely left the door open. Mr. Ewanchuk then closed the door in a manner which made the complainant think it was locked, and she became frightened. He made numerous advances, getting more aggressive each time even though the complainant said no to each advance. Frightened that she would be hurt if she seemed afraid, the complainant attempted to appear relaxed and comfortable.   

The trial judge acquitted Mr. Ewanchuk, relying on the defence of “implied consent” – even though he believed the complainant had not consented, her failure to communicate that she was afraid and her attempts to seem at ease meant that her subjective lack of consent did not matter. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Arguments 

LEAF and DAWN argued that the trial judge’s definition of consent undermined women’s constitutional rights to equal protection and benefit of the law, meaningful security of the person, and equal access to justice. They emphasized that consent required the communication of a freely exercised, capable, and deliberate agreement to the sexual activity in question. “Implied consent” created a default that required complainants to protest, rather than placing the responsibility on men to obtain full and express consent. Implied consent also stemmed from assumptions about women’s sexuality, and denied their dignity and agency. 

Outcome 

The Supreme Court held that there were only two options for a trial judge – either the complainant consented, or she did not. The Court clearly stated that there is no defence of implied consent in Canadian law. And the judgment emphasized that, to be legally effective, consent needed to be freely given. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the Crown’s appeal, and convicted Mr. Ewanchuk of sexual assault. 

LEAF is grateful to Diane Oleskiw and Ritu Khullar, counsel in this case.

Download the factum here. 

Read the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision here. 

Our records are imperfect, but we are doing our best to update them – if you were involved with LEAF on this case but your name is not reflected here, please email us at [email protected].

R. c. Ewanchuk (1999)

Cette affaire concernait la question de savoir s’il existait une défense de « consentement implicite » dans le droit concernant les agressions sexuelles.

Le FAEJ, en partenariat avec le Réseau d’action des femmes handicapées du Canada (RAFHC)est intervenu devant la Cour suprême du Canada.

Faits

La plaignante, âgé de 17 ans, a assisté à un entretien d’emploi dans la camionnette de Steve Ewanchuk. M. Ewanchuk l’a ensuite invitée à voir son travail dans la remorque derrière la camionnette. La plaignante a accepté, mais a délibérément laissé la porte ouverte. M. Ewanchuk a ensuite fermé la porte d’une manière qui a fait croire à la plaignante qu’elle était verrouillée, et elle a eu peur. Il a fait de nombreuses avances, devenant chaque fois plus agressif même si la plaignante a dit non à chaque avance. Craignant d’être blessée si elle avait l’air d’avoir peur, la plaignante a tenté de paraître détendue et confortable. 

Le juge du procès a acquitté M. Ewanchuk, invoquant la défense de « consentement implicite » – même s’il croyait que la plaignante n’avait pas consenti, son défaut de communiquer qu’elle avait peur et ses tentatives de paraître à l’aise signifiaient que son absence subjective de consentement n’avait pas d’importance. La Cour d’appel de l’Alberta a confirmé l’acquittement. La Couronne a interjeté appel devant la Cour suprême du Canada.

Argumentation

Le FAEJ et le RAFHC ont fait valoir que la définition du consentement donnée par le juge de première instance portait atteinte aux droits constitutionnels des femmes à l’égalité de protection et de bénéfice de la loi, à une véritable sécurité de la personne et à un accès égal à la justice. Ils ont souligné que le consentement exigeait la communication d’un accord librement exercé, capable et délibéré à l’activité sexuelle en question. Le « consentement implicite » a créé un défaut qui obligeait les plaignants à protester, plutôt que d’imposer aux hommes la responsabilité d’obtenir un consentement complet et exprès. Le consentement implicite découle également d’hypothèses sur la sexualité des femmes et dénie leur dignité et leur libre arbitre.

Résultat

La Cour suprême a conclu qu’il n’y avait que deux options pour un juge de première instance – soit la plaignante a consenti, soit elle n’a pas consenti.  La Cour a clairement déclaré qu’il n’y a pas de défense de consentement implicite en droit canadien. Et le jugement a souligné que, pour être juridiquement efficace, le consentement devait être donné librement. En conséquence, la Cour suprême a accueilli l’appel du ministère public et a déclaré M. Ewanchuk coupable d’agression sexuelle.

Le FAEJ remercie Diane Oleskiw et Ritu Khullar, avocates dans cette cause.

Téléchargez le mémoire du FAEJ et du RAFHC ici.

Lisez la décision de la Cour suprême du Canada ici.

Nos dossiers sont imparfaits, mais nous faisons de notre mieux pour les mettre à jour – si vous étiez impliqué avec le FAEJ dans cette affaire mais que votre nom n’apparaît pas ici, veuillez nous envoyer un courriel à [email protected].  

Case Documents

September 21, 1998
Supreme Court of Canada Factum

Case News

Loading...
Help us promote gender equality
Donate to support equality

Search Cases & Submissions

  • Issue Area

  • Type

  • By Date

  • Keyword

  • Reset search
Help us promote gender equality
Donate to support equality

Stay up to date on feminist law and LEAF’s work to advance gender equality

Related Cases

Loading...

R. v. Slatter (2020)

This case concerned access to justice for women labelled with intellectual disabilities.

R. v. Sullivan; R. v. Chan (2020)

This case concerned the ability to use self-induced extreme intoxication as a defence to assault.
More Cases

Related Cases

Loading...

R. v. Slatter (2020)

This case concerned access to justice for women labelled with intellectual disabilities.

R. v. Sullivan; R. v. Chan (2020)

This case concerned the ability to use self-induced extreme intoxication as a defence to assault.
More Cases

Related Issue Area

Loading...

Sexual Assault and Consent Law

Case Summary

R. v. Ewanchuk (1999)

Sidebar Placeholder

LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb_rev
Donate to support equality

National Office
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1420
Toronto, ON M5G 1Z8
[email protected]
Phone: 416.595.7170
Toll-free: 1.888.824.5323
Facsimile: 416.595.7191

Stay up to date on feminist law and LEAF’s work to advance gender equality

LEAF_FAEJ_hz_names_colour_rgb_rev

National Office
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1420
Toronto, ON M5G 1Z8
[email protected]
Phone: 416.595.7170
Toll-free: 1.888.824.5323
Facsimile: 416.595.7191

Charitable Registration Number: 10821 9916 RR0001

Facebook-f
Twitter
Instagram

Stay up to date on feminist law and LEAF’s work to advance gender equality

Donate to support equality

© 2020 Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF). All rights reserved. | Legal & Privacy | Accessibility | Website by Affinity Bridge

MENU

Menu
  • About
    • Our Story
    • Mission & Vision
    • Staff
    • Board
    • Law Program Committee
    • FAQs
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Student Positions
  • Cases and Law Reform
    • Our Work
    • Issue Areas
      • Reproductive Justice
      • Indigenous Rights and Law
      • Identity-Based Oppression
      • Hate Speech and Online Hate
      • Sexual Assault and Consent Law
      • Gender-Based Violence
      • Access to Justice
      • Workplace Rights
      • Socio-Economic Rights
      • Family Law
    • Search Cases & Submissions
    • Current Work
      • Basic Income Project
      • LEAF’s Feminist Strategic Litigation Project
      • LEAF’s Technology-Facilitated Violence (TFV) Project
      • National Abortion Access Framework
    • Past Projects
    • Legal Representation Referrals
  • Education
    • Overview
    • Workshops, trainings & webinars
    • Factsheets & infographics
  • News & Events
    • Search News & Events
    • Events
  • Publications
    • Search Publications
    • Working Papers
    • Reports
    • Annual Reports
  • Regional Branches
    • Overview
    • LEAF Edmonton
    • LEAF Halifax
    • LEAF Hamilton
    • LEAF Kingston
    • LEAF Ottawa
    • LEAF Québec
    • LEAF Thunder Bay
    • LEAF Toronto
    • LEAF Windsor
  • Get Involved
    • Ways to Get Involved
    • Donate
    • Join a Branch
    • Volunteer
    • Become a LEAF Pro Bono Lawyer
    • Partner with LEAF