I can’t believe my eyes when I read, “Have you ever read a dissent by a judge who admitted to not having read the majority opinion?” This is truly amazing. I hope the university will appeal. (smile, sorry, my bad)
I thought Alberta Court of Appeal judge John “bonnet and crinolines” McClung set the benchmark when he was lectured by the Supreme Court of Canada in “R. v. Ewanchuk,  1 S.C.R. 330“,
 In the Court of Appeal, McClung J.A. compounded the error made by the trial judge. At the outset of his opinion, he stated at p. 245 that “it must be pointed out that the complainant did not present herself to Ewanchuk or enter his trailer in a bonnet and crinolines”. He noted, at pp. 245-46, that “she was the mother of a six-month-old baby and that, along with her boyfriend, she shared an apartment with another couple”.
 Even though McClung J.A. asserted that he had no intention of denigrating the complainant, one might wonder why he felt necessary to point out these aspects of the trial record. Could it be to express that the complainant is not a virgin? Or that she is a person of questionable moral character because she is not married and lives with her boyfriend and another couple? These comments made by an appellate judge help reinforce the myth that under such circumstances, either the complainant is less worthy of belief, she invited the sexual assault, or her sexual experience signals probable consent to further sexual activity. Based on those attributed assumptions, the implication is that if the complainant articulates her lack of consent by saying “no”, she really does not mean it and even if she does, her refusal cannot be taken as seriously as if she were a girl of “good” moral character.