Analysis of case law, criminal procedure, and evidence in Canadian sexual assault proceedings, written by criminal defence lawyer Aasheesh Puri.
Sexual Assault Blog is an independent Canadian legal publication examining sexual assault law as it plays out in real cases – covering case law, criminal procedure, evidence, and sentencing decisions. It’s written by Aasheesh Puri, a criminal defence lawyer practicing in British Columbia.
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. v. A.M., 2026 SCC 33 on October 16, 2026. The case asks whether the rape shield provisions in section 276 of the Criminal Code apply when a person is charged with sexual services or human trafficking offences rather than sexual assault.
The Supreme Court of Canada established the three-step framework for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt in R. v. W.D., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. Cory J. formulated the instruction directly: first, if the trier of fact believes the evidence of the accused, it must acquit; second, if the trier of fact
A section 278 application deals with the production of third-party records in cases involving sexual offences. Some of the most important evidence in a sexual assault case is contained in records that are not in the possession of the defence or the Crown. Therapy notes, counselling records, child welfare files,
A sexual assault conviction carries some of the most serious consequences in Canadian criminal law. Sentencing in this area has become more severe in recent years, particularly following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Friesen. The consequences of a conviction also extend well beyond the sentence imposed
A sexual assault case can take a significant amount of time to move from charge to verdict. Understanding the steps along the way can help clarify the process and support better decision-making at each stage. This post outlines the typical progression of a sexual assault case in Canada from start
If you are a complainant in a sexual assault case, the criminal trial process can feel as though it is proceeding around you rather than with you. The Crown represents the public interest, not the complainant’s personal legal interests, and the defence represents the accused. In certain circumstances, a complainant