R v Seaboyer

{{clarity|date=May 2026}} {{SCCInfoBox |case-name=R v Seaboyer |full-case-name= |heard-date=March 26, 27, 1991 |decided-date=August 22, 1991 |citations=[1991] 2 S.C.R. 577 |docket=20666|docket2=20835 |history= |ruling= |ratio= |SCC=1991-1992 |Majority=McLachlin J. |JoinMajority=Lamer C.J. and La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ. |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence/Dissent=L'Heureux‑Dubé J. |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Gonthier J. |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |NotParticipating= |LawsApplied= }}'''''R v Seaboyer''''', [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court upheld—with alterations—a rape-shield provision of the ''Criminal Code'' as it violated the right to "full answer and defence" under sections 7 and 11(d) of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The case was decided with '''''R v Gayme'''''.

Justice McLachlin, for the court majority, found that section 276 of the ''Criminal Code'' (formerly s. 246.6) was unjustifiably inconsistent with both s. 7 and s. 11 of the ''Charter'', while s. 277 (formerly s. 246.7) was not inconsistent. Those charged with sexual assault offences from cross-examining the complainant about their history of sexual activity, could, in some instances, exclude evidence needed to mount a full defence.

Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, in partial dissent, would have found that neither section of the ''Criminal Code'' was inconsistent with the ''Charter'', and if they had been inconsistent, that they would have been justifiably so.

==External links== * {{lexum-scc2|1991|2|577|76}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Seaboyer}} Category:Section Seven Charter case law Category:Section Eleven Charter case law Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases Category:1991 in Canadian case law Category:Canadian sexual assault cases Category:Canadian criminal case law Category:Canadian evidence case law