The Sloka Acquittal: What The Case—and The Appeal—mean

A gentle note before we begin: This post discusses sexual violence. Please read in a way that feels safe for you.

The recent decision in R. v. Sloka has raised difficult questions about how the justice system responds to allegations of sexual assault—particularly in medical settings where there is a clear power imbalance.

Before turning to the appeal, it is important to understand what happened at trial.

What happened at trial

Sloka, formerly practising as a neurologist, was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault arising from medical appointments with his patients. The Crown’s position was that he used medical examinations as a pretext to engage in sexual touching—meaning that while patients may have consented to medical care, they did not consent to sexual contact.

The Trial Judge rejected that framing and concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the examinations were sexual in nature, non-consensual, or motivated by a sexual purpose. The Judge accepted that the conduct could reasonably be understood as medical, and found that concerns about the reliability of some evidence created reasonable doubt. As a result, Sloka was acquitted on all counts.

Why this is a difficult case

The outcome reflects a core tension in sexual assault law. Courts must determine whether conduct was “objectively sexual.” In cases involving medical professionals, that question is often complicated by context. The same physical contact may be interpreted differently depending on whether it is viewed as medical or sexual. At the same time, consent in clinical settings is not straightforward. Patients are vulnerable, rely on authority, and may not feel able to question what is happening. The law recognizes that consent obtained through deception or abuse of authority may not be valid—but only if the conduct is first found to be sexual in nature. If the conduct can reasonably be seen as medical, the analysis often ends there.

The role of credibility

A key part of the trial decision was the judge’s assessment of credibility and reliability. The Court raised concerns about aspects of the complainants’ evidence and accepted the physician’s explanations about medical purpose. This is significant because trial judges are given deference on credibility findings, making those conclusions difficult to challenge on appeal. But this also raises broader concerns. Sexual assault cases often involve delayed reporting, evolving understanding, and complex power dynamics—factors that do not always fit neatly within traditional credibility assessments.

What the appeal will address

The appeal asks whether the law was applied correctly and whether the Trial Judge’s conclusions were reasonably available on the evidence. That said, the appeal engages important issues, including how courts determine whether touching in a medical setting is “objectively sexual”; how consent should be assessed where there is a power imbalance; and, how credibility is evaluated in complex, multi-complainant cases.

For survivors and advocates, the case raises a broader question: whether the legal framework, as applied here, adequately reflects the realities of consent in clinical environments—or whether it sets a threshold that is too difficult to meet. R. v. Sloka highlights the challenges of addressing allegations of sexual violence in professional settings, where trust, vulnerability, and authority intersect. It also underscores the ongoing need for legal approaches that are both careful and trauma-informed.

For many, this case is not just about one decision—it is part of a broader conversation about consent, accountability, and access to justice. At Siskinds, we see the courage it takes to come forward. We also see the importance of ensuring that the legal system responds in a way that is informed, respectful, and grounded in lived experience.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.