Consent for sex didn’t apply to twin, appeal court rules

Assault conviction upheld against man who had intercourse with woman who mistook him for his brother

Cigdem Iltan

Toronto — From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jun. 18, 2010

A man who had sex with his identical twin’s occasional lover in a dark bedroom was reckless and “willfully blind” because he did not take the necessary steps to make his identity clear to the woman, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled.

On Friday, the three-judge panel dismissed an appeal from the man, who was found guilty of sexual assault in 2008 by an Ontario Superior Court judge and sentenced to six months in prison.

In the appeal, the man argued the woman had given consent to sex despite her mistake about the identity of her partner. Even if the absence of consent was established, he said he had an honest but mistaken belief she had given consent. He also argued the judge held him to an unusually high standard about whether he had taken reasonable steps to determine the woman had consented to sex.

The woman was at a party hosted by a friend in the fall of 2006 when she said she felt tired after drinking three-quarters of a bottle of wine. She went to sleep in the bed of her friend, with whom she had a sexual relationship.

Her friend’s twin brother, the accused, also had several drinks and slipped into the same bed after he said he too eventually became tired.

So when he cuddled up next to her, the woman said she thought it was her occasional lover.

The accused testified that he asked “Are you sure?” before they had sex, and she was the first to touch him. But she said it was the accused who woke her when he began petting her. She also testified she called him by his twin brother’s name about a dozen times before he penetrated her.

They engaged in intercourse until “little light bulbs” went off in her head, she said.

The woman’s consent depended on the sex being with her friend, Mr. Justice Stephen Goudge of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote in the decision, on behalf of Mr. Justice David Doherty and Mr. Justice John Laskin. Her mistake did not mean she voluntarily agreed to sex with someone else, they said.

“It is hardly surprising that, from the complainant’s perspective that night, the identity of her sexual partner was an inseparable component of any consent to sexual activity,” Judge Goudge wrote.

The appellate court said the man did not take the reasonable steps to obtain consent. The dark bedroom, no previous relationship with the woman and the fact she had gone to sleep in his twin brother’s bed all meant he should have done more than he did to make his identity clear to the woman, the decision said.





The Ontario Court of Appeal is one of the greatest man hating institutions in the western world.

The judgments and reasons for decisions are very obviously extremely biased against men.

In this case, it was "he said" versus "she said" and the judge believed that she, wait for it, she claimed, "that she called out his name at least a A DOZEN times".

Now if she had been calling out @!#$!@ Me a dozen times perhaps that could have been believed. Very obviously, she was not interested in "his name" when she, at one point, decided to have sex with him.

Every man in Ontario needs to be warned that if a case goes to appeal in Ontario, the odds are stacked against him, terribly, at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Women win most their appeals, men do not.

IF a man, every rarely gets to have any success in the Ontario Court of Appeal, the COSTS are invariably awarded AGAINST HIM, even when he is successful.

There are hundreds of cases where women have obtained spousal support or increases in spousal support at the Ontario however you wont find a single case where a man, was given spousal support on appeal.

The most man hating lawyers get to be judges of the Ontario Superior court. The very worst of these, who demonstrate their hatred towards men, get to go to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

If they can really demonstrate bias and hatred towards men at the Ontario Court of Appeal, they get to go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once up there, they can do a reverse step back to the Ontario Court of Appeal to show them how to fine tune their decisions against men.

The judge who is next in line for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada is none other than Katherine Feldman who has at this moment, the very worst record of biased decisions against men.

Check out the very detailed research by Peter Roscoe.

Even yesterday, another decision came down, he won the issue, she got the costs. Typical of the Ontario Court of Appeal.


We are seeing on this forum, the very examples of why courts should not convict one man on the evidence of one woman.

Under Sharia Law, a woman evidence is less than a mans. In Ontario, we have Male Sharia Law, virtually any woman can claim that a man "sexually assaulted her" or "assaulted her" or "threatened her" and her evidence , uncorroborated is enough to convict.

You can see the raging extreme feminists, most of whom have some connection with the Canadian Man Haters Associations, women's centres, posting her, ALLUDING that any male who posts here supports sexual assaults on women..

Sexual assault centres will load society down with their own fictional statistics that is used to obtain funding.

If a woman kills a man or assaults a male, that statistic is more than likely NOT to be recorded. It is more likely to be recorded as a statistic of a man assaulting a woman.

Take the London Ontario Police, their statistics failed to record a female police officer killing her male partner.

Extreme Feminists are highly likely to engage in "the process of justification" such as, "he is an a-shole so, fabricate a charge against him, do indirectly what you could not do directly. Its a lynch mob mentality.

Our family and criminal courts have amongst the genuine cases, a very large number of false allegations, fabricated allegations, that end up in long trials and those in which men are totally exonerated just don't make news.

In this particular case, unfortunately, the evidence was one woman against one man and it only under the most extraordinary cases that the evidence of one person should be used to criminally convict another.

Feminist doctrine is to increasingly tear up all the established rules of evidence to increase "the rate of convictions".

These woman have a pathological hatred of men and its the women who associate with them that are highly likely to make false allegations.



I read the decision. The statements of the accused are in many ways quite damming. The judge may have been entitled to conclude on the balance of probabilities that he "let her think" that he was the other twin.

The problem is, that despite how revolted you are about the accused, it boils down to an issue of EVIDENCE and does that evidence cross the line of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".

If this was a civil case, the judge would still have to judge His Evidence versus Her Evidence.

The offense of Perjury is the classic example of He Said versus She said, and because it is such a classic, the framers of our Criminal Code made sure that One Person could not be convicted just on the evidence of One "other" Person, it requires corroboration.

The fact is our Ontario Government Crown prosecutors take cases to trial on SHE SAID versus HE SAID on the Charge of Perjury on a regular basis. The DO NOT take the same charges under the same "One person's evidence" to court when the complainant is MALE.

The bottom line is that there is ONE LAW for Females and ONE LAW for Males. Its a Male Sharia Law, its a Law of Gender Apartheid.

It will remain that way until women who are true believes in Equality in the Law back changes to enforce the equal application of the law.

Our Female Sexual Assault "experts" who we see posting in droves like brainwashed robots, should spare a thought for the MEN who are RAPED by women.

Rarely a husband in Ontario will refuse his wife's demands for sex, even when she knows he does not want it. RAPE by women occurs all the time and its only under the rarest of circumstances that a man ever raises the complaint, to ridicule.

Female teachers are increasingly getting sprung raping their male students but, Police, the courts, the judiciary treat it very differently.

Again, there is one law for women and one law for men. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Our judges see things through a Gender Lens.
In order to get rid of the lens, you have to look at the agreed facts and then look at what does not add up. His story while far fetched is not out of realm of possibility while neither is hers except for parts of their stories.

Both their stories lack credibility and its for that reason that this decision is very very wrong.

The woman's story raises a question of motivation. He claim that she called his name 12 times defies belief. Just ask yourself have you in a lifetime every called out your partners name 12 times while having sex?

Hell, most of us have at some time mentioned someone elses name instead and got into trouble for it.

Its her claim of having called his name 12 times. If for example she sensed he was being unusually quiet or even possibly deceptive would she really keep calling out his name 12 times or just turn on the light to make sure?

It's that aspect of her story that raises, at least a question, that she "made up that allegation" of having called his name 12 times, AFTER having sex with him.

The JUDGE Ignored the fact that she may have had, "adventurers remorse", that is, she KNEW it was him, the twin, but was so ashamed of herself, it was EASIER FOR HER TO LIE, have him charged than admit the truth.

The fact is, she would have faced extreme embarassment, she had all the motivation in the world to lie about it.

It's that possibility, "POSSIBILITY" that puts both their evidence into the dubious and unreliable category and why the decision was wrong.

If this appeal goes to the SCC then we can expect Canada's worst feminist judges to see it her way. After all, you only get to be a judge at the SCC if you have allready proven that you are a chronic man hater at a lower court.

Justice Grouge will sure earn a few points to the SCC on this one.


It is a very sad fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal is a virtual court of Male Sharia Law.

Even if a male wins, the Ontario Court of Appeal "buries the case", that is, the "open appeal" due to be heard, gets taken into chambers, a decision favourable to the male if it comes out, will also have a COSTS ORDER AGAINST THE MALE.

Across the board, check the research by Peter Roscoe, the OCA uses orders for costs to penalize men for having the audacity to appeal decisions.

At the OCA you will see dramatically different results on average based on gender.

In sum, the OCA shows extreme bias against men and for women.

Across the board in family law, women routinely get spousal support but despite the modern trend towards women having higher incomes and better employment, it is still almost unheard of for a male to receive spousal support from a woman.

When the Ontario Court of Appeal has that kind of track record for bias, its decisions are no reflection on the merits. Cases are decided more on the basis of GENDER rather than evidence or heaven forbid, law other than Ontario Male Sharia Law.

This particular case was just the competing evidence of a male versus a female without any corroboration of any kind. That's a sad day for justice and a warning to any man about what could happen to him if one female makes one allegation.

The reports of CANLii are not comprehensive. There are a large number of cases that are not published.

In particular, some appeals NEVER get heard if there is a chance that a MALE might be successful. These cases are taken to "chambers" and dealt with by a single judge "in chambers" " in a conference".

You would think that the court of appeal would want to show those cases where they were objective but no, they don't want any public record of anything that might upset feminist viewpoints.

Its not just the male and female judiciary who are terrified of extreme feminists, its an epidemic amongst the medical community also who can be destroyed by a false allegation.

We need justice not a court almost entirely engaged in a war against men.