McLachlin had found that the denial of the mistake-of-age defence in the Criminal Code provision was justified under section 1 because it created a strong deterrent against having sexual intercourse with girls, even if they appear to have attained the statutory age. Wilson disagreed with this analysis. She argued that it ascribed an unrealistically high degree of legal sophistication to the average accused (paragraph 48).
McLachlin's ruling upholding the Criminal Code provision's denial of the mistake-of-age defense was justified by section 1 because it effectively deterred sexual activity with underage girls, even if they appeared to be adults. Wilson disagreed, arguing that this reasoning oversimplified the legal capabilities of the average accused (paragraph 48).