Refining the Judicial Lexicon:The Supreme Court of Canada Refines the Defences of Consentand Mistaken Belief in Consent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, contains a number of “sexual offences” including the broad and general one of “sexual assault.” The offence of sexual assault has been defined as the touching of “another person in a sexual way without her consent” (see R. v. J.A., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 440, at paragraph 23), in “circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated” (see R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, at paragraph 24). Thus, lack of consent is one of the key elements of the offence of sexual assault. In R. v. Darrach, 2 S.C.R. 443 (2000), the Supreme Court noted that it “is common for the defence in sexual offence cases to deny that the assault occurred…or to claim an honest but mistaken belief in consent” (at paragraph 58). These two issues, the nature of consent and the defence of mistaken belief in consent, have been recently considered by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".