We build a strong line of defence.
Get your life back and end this nightmare.
“In 30 years of criminal defence practice, sexual assault cases have demanded more of me than any other file. They almost always come down to a single question: whether the judge believes the complainant beyond a reasonable doubt. That question is answered through preparation — thorough disclosure review, understanding the evolution of the complainant’s account from the first police statement to the witness stand, and the skill to conduct a cross-examination that the court respects. I have seen acquittals walk out of courtrooms where the cards looked stacked against my client. The reason was almost always preparation and the ability to identify the one inconsistency that unravelled the Crown’s case.”
Jeff Mass is the founding and managing partner of Mass Tsang LLP. He has defended sexual assault cases at every level of Ontario court for over three decades — from first appearances at Old City Hall to trials before Superior Court justices, and in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Jeff has successfully argued credibility-based defences, consent defences, honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, and Charter applications in sexual assault matters. He appears regularly at Toronto courthouses and across the GTA. Jeff is a member of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario and the Law Society of Ontario.
| Offence | Criminal Code | Max — Indictable | Key Mandatory Consequences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual Assault | s. 271 | 10 years (14 yrs if complainant under 16) | SOIRA (10, 20 yrs, or life); DNA order; s. 161 prohibition |
| Sexual Assault with a Weapon / CBH | s. 272 | 14 years (life if complainant under 16) | SOIRA (life); DNA order; s. 161; mandatory minimum if under 16 |
| Aggravated Sexual Assault | s. 273 | Life imprisonment | SOIRA (life); DNA order; s. 161; mandatory minimum in most cases |
| Sexual Interference (under 16) | s. 151 | 14 years | SOIRA (life); DNA order; s. 161; mandatory minimum |
| Sexual Exploitation (16–18, authority) | s. 153 | 14 years | SOIRA (life); DNA order; s. 161 |
| Invitation to Sexual Touching | s. 152 | 14 years | SOIRA; DNA; s. 161 |
Sexual assault is prosecuted under Part VIII of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence is defined broadly and exists on a spectrum from summary conviction matters to straight indictable offences carrying life imprisonment. Understanding where your charge falls on that spectrum — and what it means for bail, trial election, and sentencing exposure — is the first thing your lawyer should explain.
Note on summary vs. indictable election: For sexual assault under s. 271, the Crown may elect to proceed summarily (maximum 18 months or 2 years less a day under Bill C-75) or by indictment (maximum 10 years). The Crown’s election significantly affects the available trial procedures and timelines. Your lawyer should be tracking the Crown’s election status from the first court appearance.
| Type of Sexual Assault Charge | Minimum Sentence (First Offence) | Minimum Sentence (Subsequent Offences) | Maximum Sentence |
| Sexual assault causing bodily harm without a firearm | None | 14 years | 14 years |
| Sexual assault with a restricted or prohibited firearm | 5 years | 7 years | Life imprisonment |
| Sexual assault causing bodily harm with possession of another firearm | 4 years | 14 years | Life imprisonment |
| Aggravated sexual assault without a firearm | None | Life imprisonment | Life imprisonment |
| Aggravated sexual assault with a firearm | 5 years | Life imprisonment | Life imprisonment |
| Aggravated sexual assault with possession of another firearm | 4 years | Life imprisonment | Life imprisonment |
Sexual assault is defined in s. 271 of the Criminal Code. An assault becomes a sexual assault when it is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature that violate the sexual integrity of the complainant. The assessment is objective: would a reasonable person consider the act to be sexual in nature given all the circumstances?
Sexual assault does not require penetration, physical injury, or violence. It encompasses any intentional touching of a sexual nature without consent. This includes: kissing, fondling, groping, grabbing, and any other unwanted sexual contact. The breadth of the definition means that charges can arise from a single momentary touch if it occurred without consent.
Sexual interference is a separate offence that applies specifically where the complainant is under 16 years of age and the accused touches the body of the complainant for a sexual purpose. It overlaps significantly with sexual assault but has its own section and its own mandatory minimum sentences. Where both offences are technically made out, the Kienapple principle prevents conviction for both arising from the same act.
There is no limitation period for sexual assault or any other sexual offence in Canada. A person can be charged decades after the alleged incident. Historical sexual assault cases present unique challenges for the defence: the accused may have limited recollection of the events, evidence has been lost or destroyed, and witnesses may be unavailable. However, they also present significant opportunities: the passage of time affects the complainant’s reliability as much as it affects the defence’s case.
Where the charge is historical and is laid more than 12 months after the alleged offence, the accused is entitled under the Code to elect trial by jury in the Superior Court of Justice — a significant procedural right.
In the vast majority of sexual assault prosecutions, the central issue is consent. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity. The legal definition of consent is found in s. 273.1 of the Criminal Code:
Section 273.1: Consent means the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question. No consent is obtained where the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant.
The Criminal Code specifies that consent is not obtained in the following circumstances, among others:
The defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent — sometimes called the Ewanchuk defence — is available where the accused genuinely believed the complainant was consenting. However, this defence is significantly restricted by s. 273.2 of the Criminal Code. It is not available where:
The critical requirement is “reasonable steps.” What steps were taken to confirm consent will be assessed by the trial judge against the specific circumstances of the encounter. The defence cannot succeed merely by the accused asserting that they believed consent existed. There must be evidence of positive steps taken to confirm it.
Note for the client review: The honest but mistaken belief defence is one of the most important and strategically complex defences available in sexual assault cases. Whether it is available and how it is presented requires careful analysis of the specific facts by your lawyer. General information about this defence on a website is not legal advice specific to your situation.
Sexual assault proceedings operate under a distinct set of legal rules that apply in no other area of criminal law. An experienced sexual assault defence lawyer must navigate these rules in every case.
Evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual activity is generally inadmissible in a sexual assault trial. Section 276 of the Criminal Code creates a “rape shield” that prevents the accused from cross-examining the complainant about their prior sexual history — whether with the accused or with others — for the purpose of suggesting that the complainant was more likely to have consented, or that the complainant is less worthy of belief.
Where the defence believes that the complainant’s prior sexual activity with the accused is genuinely relevant to a live issue at trial — not just to consent and credibility generally, but to a specific factual issue — the defence must bring a s. 276 application to the court before trial. The application is heard by the judge, and evidence is only admitted if its probative value substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect on the proceedings. The test is a strict one. This application requires specific expertise and must be prepared in advance of trial.
Where the defence believes that a third party holds private records relating to the complainant — including therapy records, counselling notes, medical records, school records, or records from a social service agency — that may be relevant to the defence, a formal application must be brought to the court to obtain those records. The application is a two-stage process: the judge first determines whether the records should be produced to the court for review, and then whether any portion of those records should be disclosed to the accused.
The threshold for obtaining third-party records in sexual assault cases is high by design. The process can be complex, time-consuming, and contested. An experienced sexual assault defence lawyer identifies early in the file which records may be relevant, brings the application in a timely manner, and marshals the arguments needed to meet the production standard.
Upon application by the Crown or the complainant — or on the court’s own motion — an order may be made prohibiting the publication, broadcasting, or transmission of any information that could identify the complainant in a sexual offence proceeding. These publication bans are standard in virtually all sexual assault cases and are imposed automatically in cases involving complainants under 18. Violation of a publication ban is a criminal offence.
Prior to the 2019 amendments through Bill C-75, accused persons in sexual assault cases could elect a preliminary inquiry in the Superior Court of Justice to test the Crown’s evidence before trial. Bill C-75 abolished preliminary inquiries for most hybrid and indictable offences, including sexual assault under ss. 271, 272, and 273. This change eliminated a significant tool that defence counsel previously used to preview the complainant’s evidence. Today, the first time the defence hears the complainant testify in most cases is at trial.
Read on to learn more about how Ontario courts address most sexual assault cases, the potential penalties, and how your Mass Tsang lawyer can help you successfully beat the charges.
This is the most important instruction for anyone charged with or under investigation for a sexual assault offence: do not provide a statement to police. Do not call the complainant. Do not contact anyone who may be a witness. Exercise your right to silence under s. 7 and your right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter. Call a lawyer immediately.
Police investigating sexual assault allegations are experienced at obtaining statements from accused persons that can be used against them at trial. A statement made in the context of an apparently friendly conversation, or in an attempt to explain your version of events, can be devastating at trial. There is no statement you can give to police that helps your case. There is only silence, and your right to it.
A person arrested on a sexual assault charge will typically be held for a bail hearing. The Crown will almost certainly seek conditions on release, including a no-contact order with the complainant, restrictions on communications, and in some cases a surety requirement. For charges involving an alleged complainant who was under 16, or where there are multiple alleged complainants, the Crown may seek detention.
An experienced bail counsel can make the difference between a restrictive bail and one that allows you to maintain your employment, residence, and family relationships while the case proceeds. Bail is the first substantive legal proceeding in your case and should not be approached without a lawyer.
Once the charge has been processed, you are entitled to full disclosure of all the evidence the Crown intends to rely on — police notes, the complainant’s KGB statement (videotaped statement), any DNA evidence, records obtained during the investigation, and any forensic reports. Your lawyer will review all disclosure carefully, looking for: inconsistencies in the complainant’s account across different statements; gaps in the police investigation; potential Charter issues with how evidence was obtained; and any exculpatory material the Crown is required to disclose.
In sexual assault cases, the complainant’s prior statements — to police, to friends, by text message or social media — are often the most important material in the defence file. Identifying and preserving that material early is critical.
For sexual assault under s. 271 charged by indictment, the accused has the right to elect the mode of trial: before a judge alone in the Ontario Court of Justice; before a judge alone in the Superior Court of Justice; or before a judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice. The election has significant implications for strategy, timeline, and the conduct of the trial. Your lawyer will advise on the best election for your specific case.
Every sexual assault case turns on its specific facts. These are the defences most commonly available in Ontario sexual assault proceedings:
The most commonly deployed and most effective defence in sexual assault cases is a rigorous challenge to the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s account. Because most sexual assault cases have no physical evidence and no witnesses, the Crown’s case rests entirely on whether the judge believes the complainant beyond a reasonable doubt. Prior inconsistent statements — between the initial complaint, the police video statement (KGB statement), preliminary inquiry testimony if available, and trial evidence — are the foundation of cross-examination.
The complainant’s reliability is different from their credibility. Credibility is whether they are deliberately lying; reliability is whether their memory is accurate. Both can be challenged independently. A complainant may be entirely sincere but mistaken about what occurred, particularly in cases involving alcohol, darkness, stress, or the passage of years since the alleged incident.
Where the specific facts support it, the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent under s. 273.2 is a complete answer to a sexual assault charge. This defence requires: evidence that the accused genuinely believed the complainant was consenting; evidence of the reasonable steps the accused took to confirm consent; and the absence of intoxication, recklessness, or wilful blindness on the accused’s part. The defence requires careful preparation and, in most cases, testimony by the accused.
Where the complainant in fact consented to the sexual activity in question — where the Crown’s allegation is that the activity occurred without consent, but the evidence establishes that it did — the defence is factual consent. This differs from the honest but mistaken belief defence in that the accused’s position is not merely that they believed there was consent, but that there was actual consent. The trial judge must assess whether the Crown has proven the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
In cases where the complainant does not know the accused, where the alleged assault occurred in darkness or poor visibility, or where the complainant’s identification of the accused is based on limited or unreliable observation, identity is a live issue. DNA evidence, alibi evidence, surveillance footage, and expert evidence on eyewitness memory can all be relevant to an identity defence.
Where the accused was not present at the location of the alleged assault, alibi evidence establishes a complete defence. Alibi evidence should be disclosed to the Crown in advance of trial — late alibi disclosure can reduce the weight a trial judge assigns to it.
Where the police violated the accused’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the investigation — unlawful search, failure to advise of the right to counsel, improper interrogation — evidence obtained as a result may be excluded. Where the excluded evidence includes a statement by the accused or forensic evidence necessary to the Crown’s case, the charge may be dismissed entirely.
Sexual assault cases in the Superior Court of Justice frequently take 18–30+ months from charge to trial. The Jordan framework sets a presumptive ceiling of 30 months in the Superior Court, beyond which a stay of proceedings may be available. Your lawyer should be tracking delay from the outset of the file. A Jordan application in a complex sexual assault case can be one of the most powerful tools in the defence arsenal.
The Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) requires every person convicted of a designated sexual offence to register with the national sex offender registry. Registration is not optional and is not subject to judicial discretion in most cases — the court must make the order upon conviction. The consequences of SOIRA registration are significant and long-lasting:
A conviction for any sexual offence under Part VIII of the Criminal Code results in a mandatory DNA collection order. Your DNA profile will be added to the National DNA Data Bank and will be compared against DNA from crime scenes across Canada and internationally (through information-sharing with partner jurisdictions). This order is mandatory and is not subject to mitigation at sentencing.
Upon conviction for a sexual offence involving a complainant under 16, or upon a second or subsequent conviction for certain sexual offences, the court may (and in many cases must) impose a s. 161 prohibition order. A s. 161 order can prohibit the offender from: attending public parks and swimming pools where persons under 16 are present; attending school grounds, daycare centres, playgrounds, or community centres; accepting employment or volunteering in a position of trust or authority over persons under 16; using the internet or other digital network in a specified manner.
The scope and duration of a s. 161 order depends on the offence and the circumstances. In cases involving minors, these orders can profoundly restrict daily life for years after the sentence has been served.
A sexual assault conviction can carry consequences beyond the criminal justice system. Under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a conviction for an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years — or one for which a sentence of more than 6 months is actually imposed — constitutes serious criminality. Sexual assault under s. 271 carries a 10-year maximum on indictment, so a conviction can meet this threshold on the offence itself, regardless of the sentence imposed. For a permanent resident or foreign national, a finding of serious criminality can lead to inadmissibility and removal proceedings, in addition to the sentence itself. Anyone facing a sexual assault charge who is not a Canadian citizen should raise their immigration status with their lawyer at the earliest stage of the case, before any plea or trial strategy is decided.
Allegations: Sexual Assault (s. 271)
Defence: Advanced the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent. Presented detailed evidence of the nature of the prior relationship between the client and the complainant and the specific circumstances immediately preceding the alleged incident. Cross-examined the complainant on communications that contradicted the Crown’s theory that consent was clearly refused.
Result: Acquittal. Trial judge found that the Crown had not disproved the honest belief defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Allegations: Sexual Assault (s. 271), Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm (s. 272)
Defence: Brought a third-party records application under ss. 278.1–278.9 to obtain and produce records directly relevant to the complainant’s credibility. Conducted a rigorous cross-examination identifying significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s KGB statement, initial police interview, preliminary inquiry testimony, and evidence at trial.
Result: Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm charge withdrawn by Crown mid-trial. Acquittal entered on the Sexual Assault charge.
Allegations: Sexual Interference (s. 151), Invitation to Sexual Touching (s. 152)
Defence: Filed a Jordan application establishing that the elapsed time from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling applicable to Ontario Court of Justice proceedings. Documented that delays were attributable to institutional causes and Crown-caused adjournments, and not to any conduct of the defence.
Result: All charges stayed for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
Allegations: Sexual Assault (s. 271)
Defence: Challenged the complainant’s credibility and reliability through detailed cross-examination of inconsistencies across multiple prior statements, including a text message communication obtained during disclosure in which the complainant made statements materially inconsistent with the Crown’s case. Argued that the cumulative inconsistencies made it impossible to convict on the criminal standard.
Result: Acquittal at trial.
Allegations: Sexual Assault (s. 271)
Defence: Established mistaken identity as the central defence. Adduced evidence demonstrating that the client was not at the location alleged at the relevant time, and that the physical description provided by the complainant in her initial report to police was in several material respects inconsistent with the client’s appearance. Provided alibi evidence and corroborating witnesses to the Crown.
Result: Crown withdrew all charges prior to the commencement of trial.
Allegations: Sexual Assault (s. 271), Forcible Confinement (s. 279(2))
Defence: Retained a forensic expert to analyze the physical and medical evidence the Crown alleged supported the complainant’s account. The expert’s evidence established that the physical findings were equally consistent with a consensual encounter. Conducted a rigorous cross-examination of the investigating officer on deficiencies in the collection and preservation of evidence during the investigation.
Result: Acquittal on both counts.
Depending on all the circumstances that led to the sexual assault charges, criminal defence lawyers use the following strategies as warranted by evidence and other factors:
As a criminal offence, sexual assault charges can include everything from rape to inappropriate touching and even the threat of such. Penalties with a guilty finding are typically based on how extensive the physical element of the assault was and other factors relating to the accused and relationship with the victim. Certain sexual offences like aggravated sexual assault almost guarantee jail time if convicted in a sexual assault trial, and most sexual offences carry mandatory inclusion on the sex offenders registry with a criminal conviction.
Jeff Mass is the founding and managing partner of Mass Tsang LLP. He has defended sexual assault and sexual offence cases at every level of court in Ontario for over three decades. Jeff has appeared at Old City Hall, College Park, the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Avenue, and across GTA-area courthouses in cases ranging from sexual assault under s. 271 to aggravated sexual assault under s. 273, sexual interference, and historical allegations. Jeff is known for his rigorous cross-examination of complainants in credibility-based trials and his strategic use of third-party records applications and s. 276 applications. He is a member of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario and the Law Society of Ontario.
Heather Spence is a partner at Mass Tsang LLP and a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School. She defends clients facing sexual assault and related sexual offence charges across Ontario. Heather brings a methodical, disclosure-focused approach to sexual assault files, with particular attention to the complainant’s prior statements, third-party records production applications, and the evidentiary rules unique to sexual offence proceedings.
Brian Brody is a partner at Mass Tsang LLP who defends clients charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and related offences. Brian has represented clients at all stages of sexual assault proceedings, including bail hearings, preliminary matters, and trials in both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice. He has argued Charter applications, Jordan applications, and credibility-based defences in sexual assault matters across Toronto and the GTA.
won cases
success rate
of experience
stars customer rating
case evaluation
anonymous & secure process
dozens of hours required for research, preparation and legal defence.
Case resolution time (from charge to trial)
Speak to a Mass Tsang sexual assault lawyer today to mount the best defence possible and protect your future.
At Mass Tsang LLP, we understand the sensitive nature of sexual assault cases and prioritize your privacy. Our legal team upholds the highest standards of confidentiality, ensuring that all discussions, case details, and personal information remain strictly protected. You can trust us to handle your case with discretion, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to your rights.
Mass Tsang has a proven track record of securing over 1,000 complete dismissals of charges, leaving defendants with a clean record, and an equally impressive record in reductions in charges/penalties.
Unlike many law firms, our sexual assault lawyers practice solely in criminal law, allowing us to provide highly effective representation for clients facing criminal charges, from minor infractions to serious sexual assault offences.
You benefit from the knowledge, opinion and experience of a team of six highly skilled criminal lawyers. After years of working with the same prosecutors and judges in the Toronto area, we can provide tailored defence strategies to give you the best chance of success.
Fighting a criminal charge can be stressful and you don’t want to feel alone. We are available on weekends, late evenings, and for short-notice appointments and provide timely updates about any developments in your sexual assault charge.
We offer transparent and affordable flat rate fees, with no hidden costs, and flexible payment plans tailored to each client's unique financial situation.
Sexual assault is defined in s. 271 of the Criminal Code as an assault that is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature that violate the sexual integrity of the complainant. The offence does not require penetration, physical injury, or violence. Any intentional sexual touching without consent — including kissing, fondling, or groping — can constitute sexual assault. The test for whether contact is ‘sexual’ is objective: would a reasonable person consider the act to be sexual in nature given all the circumstances?
Yes. Intoxication of the complainant can negate their capacity to consent, even if the accused was also intoxicated. Voluntary intoxication by the accused is not a defence to sexual assault — it cannot ground the honest but mistaken belief in consent defence, and recklessness arising from intoxication does not reduce criminal liability. These cases are highly fact-specific and depend on the degree of intoxication of each party, the nature of the conduct, and the evidence available about the encounter.
This defence — available under s. 273.2 of the Criminal Code — applies where the accused genuinely believed the complainant was consenting, even if the complainant was in fact not consenting. The defence is strictly limited: it is not available where the belief arose from self-induced intoxication, recklessness, or wilful blindness; and it requires evidence that the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant was consenting. The defence requires specific factual support and typically requires the accused to testify.
For sexual assault under s. 271 charged by indictment, you have the right to elect the mode of trial: before a judge alone in the Ontario Court of Justice, before a judge alone in the Superior Court of Justice, or before a judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice. The election has significant implications for strategy, timeline, and the conduct of the trial — our lawyers will advise on the best election for your specific case.
Charges may be withdrawn if insufficient evidence or the prosecution determines that the proceeding is not in the public interest. A strong defence, presented by an experienced lawyer, can increase the chances of having charges reduced or dismissed.
Consent is defined in s. 273.1 of the Criminal Code as the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question. Silence, passivity, or the absence of resistance does not constitute consent. Consent cannot be given by a third party on behalf of the complainant. Consent obtained through an abuse of trust or authority is not valid consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, including after sexual activity has already begun.
SOIRA (Sex Offender Information Registration Act) is the law that requires people convicted of designated sexual offences to register on the national sex offender registry. Registration involves annual reporting in person, notifying police of address changes within 7 days, and notifying police before international travel. Registration duration depends on the offence: 10 years for a first offence of sexual assault under s. 271 against an adult; life for more serious offences, offences involving complainants under 16, or second/subsequent designated sexual offences. Failure to comply with SOIRA obligations is itself a criminal offence.
You will typically be held for a bail hearing. The Crown will almost certainly seek conditions on release, including a no-contact order with the complainant and restrictions on communications, and in some cases a surety requirement — for charges involving a complainant under 16, or multiple complainants, the Crown may seek detention instead. An experienced bail lawyer can make the difference between a restrictive bail and one that lets you keep your employment, residence, and family relationships while the case proceeds.
Where a third party — a therapist, doctor, school, or social service agency — holds private records about the complainant that may be relevant to your defence, your lawyer must bring a formal two-stage application to obtain them: first, whether the records should be produced to the court for review, and second, whether any part of them should be disclosed to the defence. The threshold is high by design, so identifying which records may matter and applying for them early in the file is critical.
Do not provide a statement to police, even to explain your side. Do not contact the complainant or anyone who may be a witness. Exercise your right to silence under s. 7 of the Charter and your right to counsel under s. 10(b), and call our lawyer immediately. There is no statement to police that helps your case — there is only your right to silence.
While the criminal invitation to sexual touching charge can be based on mere words, the Greater Toronto Area sexual assault defence lawyers of Mass Tsang warn clients that the offen…
Sexual assault is the least reported violent criminal act reported to Canadian police by victims. According to the latest Statistics Canada criminal victimization report, numerous s…
Unlike many other criminal offences, age-of-consent charges do not focus on whether the complainant agreed. In many cases, consent is legally irrelevant, and even an honest misunder…
Assault allegations are among the most common criminal charges in Canada — and also among the most misunderstood. One of the biggest misconceptions is that the victim can “drop the …
Sexual interference and sexual assault are distinct but equally serious offences under Canadian law. While both involve sexual conduct, sexual interference specifically targets any …
Canada’s National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) is a law enforcement tool designed to track individuals convicted of designated sexual offences. Unlike systems in some other jurisdic…
