Does 'No, Not without a Condom' Mean 'Yes, Even Without a Condom'?: The Fallout from R v Hutchinson

Lise Gotell, Isabel Grant

Research output: Working paper


In R v Kirkpatrick, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia held that consent to sexual activity cannot be established where a man proceeds with unprotected vaginal intercourse when his sexual partner has insisted on a condom. While this finding should be uncontroversial, it is in fact contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R v Hutchinson. In this comment we argue that the approach taken in Kirkpatrick is correct and consistent with the landmark decision in R v Ewanchuk. We urge the Supreme Court of Canada to reconsider its majority judgment in Hutchinson in order to fully recognize the central role that a condom plays in whether a woman agrees to participate in sexual activity.

Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2020

Cite this