CLIENT SUCCESS

Sexual assault cases are among the most difficult cases in Canadian criminal law. They often involve deeply personal allegations, private interactions, and competing versions of events. Unlike many other criminal charges, there may be no eyewitnesses, no video footage, and no physical evidence that conclusively proves what happened. Even where there is DNA or medical evidence, that evidence may only confirm that sexual contact occurred — not whether it was consensual. For that reason, many sexual assault trials turn on one central issue: whether the evidence of the witnesses is credible and reliable enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean that sexual assault cases require special suspicion toward complainants. They do not. Canadian law is clear that a complainant’s evidence can be enough to support a conviction. There is no legal requirement for corroboration. At the same time, the Crown must still prove every essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the case depends largely on testimony, the court must carefully assess whether that testimony is honest, accurate, internally coherent, consistent with the surrounding evidence, and strong enough to meet the criminal standard of proof. In sexual assault trials, credibility and reliability are not technical legal concepts. They are often the heart of the case.   Credibility vs. Reliability: Two Different Questions Although the terms are sometimes used together,...