Law360 Canada ( May 7, 2021, 2:55 PM EDT) -- Appeal by CP, a young person, from a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that affirmed his conviction for sexual assault. When CP was 15 years old, he attended a beach party. He and the 14-year-old complainant, RD, had sexual intercourse. Both had been drinking. CP testified RD consented to the sexual activity before there were any signs that she was too drunk to consent. RD did not remember the sexual activity. One of her friends, EG, testified that when she arrived at the party she immediately found RD lying on the ground extremely intoxicated. RD had been vomiting, could not get up and was incapable of communicating. CP admitted he heard EG arrive immediately after the sexual activity had concluded and that she went directly to RD. The trial judge did not believe CP’s evidence that RD was fine during the intercourse but accepted his evidence about when EG arrived and his admission EG went directly to RD. The trial judge concluded RD was in an incapacitated state at the time of intercourse and was incapable of consenting. She found CP did not have an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent. The majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal found the verdict was reasonable. CP challenged the constitutionality of s. 37(10) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), which denied young persons an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada when there was a dissent in the court of appeal....