I remember reading years ago (2010?) from a lawyer who declined to get involved in a class action law suit against a car manufacture (Honda or Toyota?). The lawyer wanted to file in Small Claims and wanted other people to do it as they would get bigger pay outs and it would cost the car manufacture more money through litigating numerous law suits.

Thanks. I deleted the second post.

Most likely, everyone was waiting to see what the Court would say about the issue. Now, that the Court had made a ruling about the Prosecutor’s conduct. I imagine now is when the disciplinary actions can start to move forward.

It would be a boon for transparency if the government had to state why organizations are being listed. I’m not expecting list of evidence however an explanation would be good.

Section 11© of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms that defendants cannot be compelled to testify in their own matter. It’s Canada’s verision of the right to remain silent.

A witness can be compelled to testify however their testimony can’t be used against them in other proceeding except for prejury charges. This is found in section 13 of the Charter.

Ultimately, it’s up to the Crown to prove their case. It all comes back to being innocent before proven guilty. Section 11(d) of the Charter.

If you were to flip it all around, you would be considered guilty until proven innocent, you would always have to testify, and any witnesses that could help you would be open to being charged. In that scenario, good luck at not ending up in jail. The vast majority of defendants don’t have the resources to take on the State in a criminal matter.

The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting

I haven’t followed this casenor seen the evidence that was provided by either the Crown or the Defence. However, the Supreme Court confirmed in R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 440 that consent for sexual activity requires ongoing consent.

[65] In the end, we are left with this. Parliament has defined sexual assault as sexual touching without consent. It has dealt with consent in a way that makes it clear that ongoing, conscious and present consent to “the sexual activity in question” is required. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases. It has proved of great value in combating the stereotypes that historically have surrounded consent to sexual relations and undermined the law’s ability to address the crime of sexual assault. In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it is inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions when they undermine Parliament’s choice. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.

The victim may have consented at first however if consent was revoked during sexual activity then it becomes sexual assault.

For thos who want to learn a new fact, it’s illegal in Ontario to discriminate against people because of their family status.