IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

The proposed interveners seek leave to intervene to assist the Court in its analysis of the issues raised in this appeal, the impact of which will reverberate beyond this decision and the parties in this case. [...] The well-established test for leave to intervene is: (1) whether the proposed intervener has a real and substantial interest in the subject of the appeal; and (2) whether the proposed intervener can provide submissions that are useful and distinct from those of the parties.3 West Coast LEAF and LEAF submit that they meet this test. [...] In particular, the proposed interveners intend to advance the arguments set out below, which relate directly to the issues raised in this appeal, as noted in the factum of the Appellant.4 a) The “rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions” should not be a standalone basis to review trial judges’ credibility findings 11. [...] The proposed interveners will submit that in assessing the wider context, the principles of substantive equality require the Court to consider the lived experience of being a woman, trans, or non-binary individual in navigating situations like that of the complainant. [...] The court found that the “marked departure” in the complainant’s behaviour in agreeing to some sexual activity warranted a “fresh start” in the analysis of her credibility on the issue of consent, but did not consider whether a marked change in the complainant’s behaviour was relevant to assessing the respondent’s evidence as to consent.