The Use of Arguments about Myths and Stereotypes to Appeal Sexual Assault Convictions in Canada

Canadian defence counsel have recently begun appealing sexual assault convictions by arguing that a trial judge applied myths and stereotypes (M&S) against the accused. This phenomenon is surprising because this country’s focus on M&S in sexual assault law has almost exclusively concerned improper assumptions that operate against the complainant and the Crown and risk producing perverse acquittals. This thesis reviews this new defence strategy with reference to three decades of appellate case law and scholarship. It advances definitions of M&S as well as principles for understanding the evidentiary effects of their recognition as such, and it categorizes various defence attempts to invoke M&S in conviction appeals, concluding that some have more merit than others. Emerging from this analysis is a more consistent, coherent role for the M&S doctrine in sexual assault law – one which should assist the Canadian bench, bar and academy in distinguishing legitimate M&S arguments from strained ones.