R. V. Ewanchuk's Case Of No Means No?

R. v. Ewanchuk’s case of “No means No” addresses a couple of basic issues. Ewanchuk was accused of inappropriately touching a job applicant despite her lack of consent. When addressed in court, Ewanchuk claimed “implied consent” because despite the fact the women kept saying no, she did not leave the trailer and failed to continually object to his behaviours. The trial judge initially accepted Ewanchuk’s defence and acquitted him. However, the Supreme Court of Canada found “implied consent” to not be a reasonable defence to sexual assault. This case made it clear that people must always have clear consent with their sexual partners.

The first issue addressed in the case would be did the judge make an error in his understanding of consent …show more content…
The answer to this issue is a definite no, especially in sexual assault cases. To assume consent is not acceptable, consent has to be given. Somebody could say the way a woman was dressed or the way she looked at them could count as implied consent, which definitely would not be counted as consent by any means. Implied consent could be the women repeatedly saying no, but not resisting or trying to stop the situation. No matter what, no means no. To have consent you have to actually have permission to touch the other person, even if they said no once then said yes afterwards that is not considered consent since the person initially did not want to take part in the activity and probably only said yes afterwards because they feel pressured to give in to the …show more content…
This case is a horrible story to have happened to someone but it is good that Ewanchuk got what he deserved and did not get away with this crime. Ewanchuk’s case was remembered for its commitment to fighting for women's equality and sexual rights. Initially the judge was going to accept Ewanchuk’s defence of implied consent and let him off not guilty, which would have made the victim very upset and scared that her attacker could just freely walk the streets after what he had done to her. After looking over the case again, the court decided that implied consent was not a proper defence and convicted Ewanchuk of his crime. Implied consent should have never been accepted as a defence for sexual assault in the first place and I'm glad the court decided to look over the case again and punish Ewanchuk for this awful