R. v. Stoll (T.), (1999) 88 O.T.C. 33 (GD)

• Judge: Hill, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 88 O.T.C. 33 (GD)

R. v. Stoll (T.) (1999), 88 O.T.C. 33 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. FE.054

Her Majesty the Queen v. Timothy Stoll

(Court File No. 2084/98)

Indexed As: R. v. Stoll (T.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Hill, J.

January 25, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault respecting two complainants. The assaults were alleged to have occurred after a house party at which the partiers, including the accused and the complainants, consumed a considerable amount of alcohol. Both complainants claimed to have been assaulted while sleeping. The first complainant (J.B.) alleged that the accused, on two occasions, touched her breast without her consent as she lay with her boyfriend on a basement couch. The second complainant (A.B.) alleged that the accused had nonconsensual sexual intercourse with her in her bedroom. The accused knew both women but had not had a sexual relationship with either complainant. The accused denied sexually assaulting J.B. The accused admitted the acts with A.B. and recognized that she did not consent, but submitted that he had had an honest but mistaken belief in her consent.

The Ontario Court (General Division) acquitted the accused of sexually assaulting J.B. and convicted him of sexually assaulting A.B. There was an entire absence of reasonable grounds for the accused's stated perceptions regarding consent.

Criminal Law - Topic 34

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Recklessness - See paragraphs 132 to 141.

Criminal Law - Topic 39.4

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Doctrine of wilful blindness - See paragraphs 136 to 141.

Criminal Law - Topic 666

Sexual offences - Rape or sexual assault - Consent and extorted consent - See paragraphs 100 to 106.

Criminal Law - Topic 674

Sexual offences - Rape or sexual assault - Defences - Mistake of fact - See paragraphs 107 to 166 and 172 to 184.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293; 80 N.R. 247; 82 N.B.R.(2d) 229; 208 A.P.R. 229; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Cuerrier (H.G.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371; 229 N.R. 279; 111 B.C.A.C. 1; 181 W.A.C. 1; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Park (D.G.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 836; 183 N.R. 81; 169 A.R. 241; 97 W.A.C. 241; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Esau (A.J.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 777; 214 N.R. 241; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Darrach (A.S.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 81; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1998), 227 N.R. 296; 122 O.A.C. 400; 124 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Jensen (C.M.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 183; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 430 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 454, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Welch (J.) (1995), 86 O.A.C. 200; 25 O.R.(3d) 665 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 481, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Butler (G.A.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Daviault (H.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63; 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 21, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Moreau (1986), 15 O.A.C. 81; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Livermore (C.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 123; 189 N.R. 126; 87 O.A.C. 81; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 212, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Laybourn, Bulmer and Illingworth, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782; 75 N.R. 271; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Reilly, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 396; 55 N.R. 274; 6 O.A.C. 88; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Murray (1986), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 361; 186 A.P.R. 361; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Bresse, Vallieres and Theberge (1978), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 78 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Campbell, [1993] O.J. No. 3008 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. P.S., [1987] B.C.J. No. 460 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Cook (1985), 20 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. O'Connor (1980), 146 C.L.R. 64 (H.C. Aust.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Leary, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 29; 13 N.R. 592; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 473, refd to. [para. 127].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, [1920] A.C. 479 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Caldwell, [1982] A.C. 341; 73 Cr. App. R. 13 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Lawrence, [1982] A.C. 510; 73 Cr. App. R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Tutton and Tutton, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392; 98 N.R. 19; 35 O.A.C. 1; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Daigle (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1220; 228 N.R. 201; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 129, affing. (1997), 127 C.C.C.(3d) 130 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Green (R.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 254; 87 W.A.C. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944; 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 124, refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Nelson (1990), 38 O.A.C. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Gingrich and McLean (1991), 44 O.A.C. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Stevens, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1153; 86 N.R. 85; 28 O.A.C. 243; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Guthrie (1985), 8 O.A.C. 277; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. M.L.M., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 3; 166 N.R. 241; 131 N.S.R.(2d) 79; 371 A.P.R. 79; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 96, refd to. [para. 158].

R. v. Dhanji, [1995] O.J. No. 2852 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 158].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 273.2(a)(i) [para. 123]; sect. 273.2(a)(ii) [para. 132]; sect. 273.2(b) [para. 142].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Boyle, Christine, and MacCrimmon, Marilyn, The Constitutionality of Bill C-49: Analyzing Sexual Assault as if Equality Really Mattered (1998), 41 Crim. L.Q. 198, p. 214 [para. 154].

Bryant, Alan W., The Issue of Consent in the Crime of Sexual Assault (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 94, pp. 131, 132 [para. 162].

Campbell, K., Intoxicated Mistakes (1989-90), 32 Crim. L.Q. 110, pp. 114 to 128 [para. 122]; 134 [para. 124].

Canada, Department of Justice, Press Release (July 1992), p. 9 [para. 121]

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Working Paper No. 38, Assault (1984), p. 25 [para. 93].

Doherty, David H., R. v. O'Connor: Mens Rea Survives in Australia (1981), 19 U.W.O.L. Rev. 281, pp. 300, 301 [para. 122].

Eisen, M., Recklessness (1988-89), 31 Crim. L.Q. 347, pp. 353 to 357, 365, 366 [para. 135].

England, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape (Heilbron Report) (Dec. 1975, Cmnd. 6352), paras. 10, 11, 61 [para. 104]; 69 [para. 109].

Heilbron Report - see England, Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape.

Malm, H.M., The Ontological Status of Consent and its Implications for the Law on Rape (1996), 2 Legal Theory 147, pp. 149 [para. 161]; 150, 151 [para. 102].

Mewett, Alan W., and Manning, Morris, Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 374 [para. 114]; 376 [para. 146].

Steed, E., Reality Check: The Sufficiency Threshold to the Air of Reality Test in Sexual Assault Cases (1994), 36 Crim. L.Q. 448, generally [para. 111].

Stuart, Donald, Canadian Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1995), p. 263 [para. 110].

Stuart, Donald, Sexual Assault: Substantive Issues Before and After Bill C-49 (1993), 35 Crim. L.Q. 241, p. 254 [para. 143].

Vandervort, Lucinda, Mistake of Law and Sexual Assault: Consent and Mens Rea (1987-88), 2 C.J.W.L. 233, pp. 263 [paras. 149, 150]; 274 [para. 155].

Wertheimer, Alan, Consent and Sexual Relations (1996), 2 Legal Theory 89, p. 105 [para. 160].

Counsel:

N.J. Bridge, for the Crown;

S.K. Fenton, for the accused.

This case was heard on December 1-3 and 7-9, 1998, by Hill, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on January 25, 1999.