The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
In the courtroom, credibility can make or break a case, especially in sexual assault trials where there is often no physical evidence or witnesses. But what happens when bias seeps into the process not through outdated tropes about complainants, but through dangerous stereotypes about the accused?
That’s exactly what happened in R. v. S.K., 2025 ONCA 149, a case that serves as a powerful reminder that prejudice cuts both ways. In this Ontario Court of Appeal decision, the trial judge’s conviction of S.K. was overturned because the Crown relied heavily on what the court called a “reverse stereotype,” that the accused, a young man with no prior romantic or sexual experience, was more likely to commit sexual assault due to pent-up sexual frustration.
The Crown argued that S.K.’s inexperience and history of rejection were relevant to his motive. This wasn’t just speculation, it became a central narrative in the case, one that painted the accused as someone driven by desperation and resentment. And the trial judge accepted it. But on appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal was clear: this kind of reasoning is not only prejudicial, it is legally improper.
At its core, the issues that arise from R. v. S.K., 2025 ONCA 149 are about fairness. The law prohibits reliance on sexual history to discredit a complainant or imply consent. That same level of protection must be extended to the accused. As the Court of Appeal rightly pointed out, suggesting that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because they are inexperienced or socially awkward is no less damaging than suggesting a complainant “asked for it” based on their clothing or sexual history.
The problem with reverse stereotypes is that they can be subtle. They play on common assumptions: that men are sexually aggressive, that rejection breeds resentment, or that emotional immaturity is a precursor to criminal behaviour. These narratives don’t belong in a court of law. They are unsupported by evidence and often serve to mask the weaknesses in the Crown’s case.
In R. v. S.K., 2025 ONCA 149, the appellate court reaffirmed that motive cannot be based on speculation. If the Crown wishes to allege that an accused had a particular intent, it must be supported by actual evidence, not assumptions based on personality traits or social standing. And most importantly, the defence must be given a fair opportunity to challenge these claims without being forced to combat bias disguised as an argument.
This case is a wake-up call for anyone involved in criminal law. Bias, whether subtle or overt, has no place in determining guilt or innocence. At Neuberger & Partners, we’ve defended countless clients against not just unfounded accusations, but against the weight of public assumptions and prosecutorial overreach.
Are you facing false allegations of domestic or sexual assault? You deserve a defence that sees the whole picture. Contact Neuberger & Partners at 416-364-3111 to speak with our experienced criminal defence lawyers.
