40:
207:, a mistake of fact defence would be allowed for rape when there was an honest belief in that fact, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief. In this case, even though the trial judge did not believe that the appellants belief in consent was even remotely reasonable, she did find that it was honest: "As I said, no rational person could have been under any honest mistake of fact. However, people have an uncanny ability to blind themselves to much that they do not want to see, and to believe in the existence of facts as they would wish them to be."
188:
relationship. A few days later the appellant became furious and attacked the complainant with a file-like object. The complainant managed to calm him down by holding out hope of some sort of reconciliation and engaging in intercourse with the appellant. The complainant reported the incident to the police, but no charges were laid. On
October 15, 1982, the appellant again broke into the complainant's house. The appellant picked up a
192:
and entered the complainant's bedroom. The complainant, fearful for her life, again tried to calm down the appellant by pretending that there was some hope of reconciliation. They engaged in intercourse shortly later, but the complainant stated that she engaged in intercourse only to prevent further
219:
An annotation by A. Manson criticizes McIntyre's decision pointing out that the
Supreme Court only has jurisdiction to hear issues of law. Since the trial judge found as a matter of fact that the appellant held the honest belief that consent had been freely given, a finding that the appellant was
187:
The appellant, John
Sansregret and the complainant lived together. Their relationship had been one of contention and discord with violence on the part of the appellant: "slappings" or "roughing up" in his description, "blows" in hers. On September 23, 1982, the complainant decided to end their
215:
Justice McIntyre, writing for a unanimous Court, entered a conviction on the basis that even if the accused was not subjectively aware that there was no consent, he was wilfully blind to the lack of consent. The culpability of wilful blindness is the accused’s refusal to inquire whether the
216:
complainant was consenting, when he was aware of the need for some inquiry, but decided not to inquire because he did not want to know the truth. Because the appellant was willfully blind to the consent of the complainant, the defense of mistake of fact cannot apply.
294:
309:
201:
The trial judge found that the appellant was not guilty of rape as defined in (then) s.143(a). Following the decision in
299:
17:
279:
314:
236:
275:
124:
304:
271:
172:
45:
203:
220:
willfully blind to whether consent had been given involved a judgement on an issue of fact.
8:
193:
violence by the appellant. She later filed charges against the appellant for rape.
71:
39:
128:
160:
Ritchie and Beetz JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
140:
112:
288:
189:
136:
132:
120:
105:
116:
175:
case on the requirements and defence for the criminal charge of
176:
286:
65:John Henry Sansregret v. Her Majesty the Queen
210:
14:
287:
248:R v Sansregret (1984), 37 C.R. (3d) 45
237:SCC Case Information - Docket 18186
24:
196:
25:
326:
264:
38:
251:
242:
230:
13:
1:
295:Supreme Court of Canada cases
223:
182:
27:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
10:
331:
310:Canadian criminal case law
171:1 S.C.R. 570 is a leading
54:Hearing: October 11, 1984
300:1985 in Canadian case law
159:
151:
146:
101:
96:
88:
80:
70:
60:
53:
37:
32:
257:(1985), 45 C.R. (3d) 194
272:Supreme Court of Canada
239:Supreme Court of Canada
173:Supreme Court of Canada
46:Supreme Court of Canada
204:Pappajohn v The Queen
56:Judgment: May 9, 1985
211:Reasons of the court
152:Unanimous reasons by
315:Recklessness (law)
164:
163:
92:Appeal dismissed.
16:(Redirected from
322:
258:
255:
249:
246:
240:
234:
129:Julien Chouinard
125:William McIntyre
110:Puisne Justices:
97:Court membership
42:
30:
29:
21:
18:R. v. Sansregret
330:
329:
325:
324:
323:
321:
320:
319:
285:
284:
267:
262:
261:
256:
252:
247:
243:
235:
231:
226:
213:
199:
197:Mistake of Fact
185:
108:
55:
49:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
328:
318:
317:
312:
307:
305:Rape in Canada
302:
297:
283:
282:
266:
265:External links
263:
260:
259:
250:
241:
228:
227:
225:
222:
212:
209:
198:
195:
184:
181:
168:R v Sansregret
162:
161:
157:
156:
153:
149:
148:
144:
143:
141:Gerald Le Dain
113:Roland Ritchie
103:Chief Justice:
99:
98:
94:
93:
90:
86:
85:
82:
78:
77:
74:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
43:
35:
34:
33:R v Sansregret
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
327:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
292:
290:
281:
277:
273:
270:Full text of
269:
268:
254:
245:
238:
233:
229:
221:
217:
208:
206:
205:
194:
191:
190:butcher knife
180:
178:
174:
170:
169:
158:
154:
150:
147:Reasons given
145:
142:
138:
137:Bertha Wilson
134:
133:Antonio Lamer
130:
126:
122:
121:Willard Estey
118:
114:
111:
107:
106:Brian Dickson
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
47:
41:
36:
31:
19:
274:decision at
253:
244:
232:
218:
214:
202:
200:
186:
167:
166:
165:
109:
102:
64:
44:
155:McIntyre J.
289:Categories
278: and
224:References
183:Background
117:Jean Beetz
81:Docket No.
76:1 SCR 570
72:Citations
280:CanLII
89:Ruling
84:18186
276:LexUM
177:rape
291::
179:.
139:,
135:,
131:,
127:,
123:,
119:,
115:,
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
