R. v. Beauregard

R. v. Beauregard

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that LP did not consent to unprotected vaginal intercourse and that the accused had the requisite mens rea because he failed to take objectively reasonable steps to ascertain affirmative communicated consent to sex without a condom; the accused's post‑incident texts were adoptive admissions that undermined his credibility, so the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent fails.

Citation
2022 NSSC 311
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia; Accused: Alexander Beauregard
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sexual Assault) / Trial Judgment (guilty)
Outcome
Accused convicted of sexual assault contrary to s.271 of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Consent, Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent, Text Messages as Admissions, Reasonable Doubt, Credibility Assessment, Publication Ban
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Sexual Assault Consent Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent Text Messages as Admissions Reasonable Doubt +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia

Prosecutor

Alexander Beauregard

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sexual Assault) / Trial Judgment (guilty)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complainant consented to unprotected vaginal intercourse
  2. 2 Whether the accused had an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent
  3. 3 Whether the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that LP did not consent to unprotected vaginal intercourse and that the accused had the requisite mens rea because he failed to take objectively reasonable steps to ascertain affirmative communicated consent to sex without a condom; the accused's post‑incident texts were adoptive admissions that undermined his credibility, so the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent fails.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of sexual assault contrary to s.271 of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Conviction entered for sexual assault (s.271 Criminal Code)
  • Publication ban ordered under ss.486.4 and 486.5 of the Criminal Code prohibiting publication of information that could identify the victim or witnesses