New judges being appointed in Canada will have to commit to taking training in sexual assault law, thanks to Bill C-3 which has now become law.
Bill C-3 was passed in the Senate on May 6th, 2021, marking the third attempt to see legislation of this nature passed by Parliament.
The legislation will require new federally appointed judges to agree to take training, including learning about rape myths and stereotypes and how to make sure biases about race, gender, and other social factors do not influence their decisions. Who are federally appointed judges? These are judges appointed to the Court of Queen’s Bench and provincial court of appeals. The Justice Minister in his announcement stated that he hopes that provinces will follow suit and set the same requirements for provincial court judges.
The new law also requires judges to put their reasons on the record when ruling on sexual assault cases.
The legislation originated as a private member’s bill from former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose.
The Liberal government supported it, and it easily passed in the Commons, but stalled in the Senate and died when Parliament was dissolved for the 2019 election.
When Judges Make Sexual Assault Victims Feel Like Criminals
One may ask that how did we get to this? Judges are seen as learned and well sort-out. People see judges as individuals belonging to a subset of our society that is composed of professionals who uphold the law, the integrity of the legal system, and people that best exemplify neutrality. Whilst I concur that most of this is true, I will also say that judges are people who are not immune to holding biases, stereotypes, and many do lack cultural competencies. Research in the UK has shown that the accent you speak may influence the sentence you receive from judges. The researchers of the study reported that people who speak the Birmingham dialect (Brummie) were more likely to receive harsher sentences than someone who spoke Cockney which is the accent spoken by the working-class Londoners. Canadian research on the discrepancy in sentencing has also shown evidence that factors such as a person’s age, sex, gender, ethnicity, facial hair, socio-economic status all may play a role in the outcome of their criminal case. Note that these researches only speak to correlation and not causality.
What led to Bill C-3 being introduced in parliament were sexual assault cases, some right here in Alberta, where a judge(s) displayed insensitivity, ignorance, lack of cultural competencies, lack of training, and perhaps lack of common sense during a sexual assault trial. Former Justice Robin Camp was removed from the bench after demonstrating such behavior during a sexual assault trial in Alberta. Among the questions Camp put to the woman — who was testifying that she was raped in the bathroom at a city house party — was a query as to why she couldn’t squeeze her bottom into a sink basin to prevent alleged sex offender Alexander Wagar from penetrating her.
Camp also asked the woman why she didn’t keep her knees together and repeatedly referred to her as the accused.
In an Ontario courtroom, Jane testified she didn’t always fight back when she was allegedly brutally raped over a 15-hour period by her brother-in-law. Sometimes she screamed at the accused to stop, but other times she stayed quiet out of fear, she said.
“Surely it is one or the other,” Superior Court Justice Alissa Mitchell determined in her April 2018 verdict. “The fact she behaved inconsistently in this regard, weakens her credibility.”
The accused, known only as A.B.A. due to a publication ban, was acquitted. But earlier this year, the Court of Appeal blasted Mitchell for “applying the stereotypical views about how victims of sexual assault should behave” and ordered a new trial.
In another case, Sarah took the stand and described being violently sexually assaulted. She said she was bitten and slapped while being forced to have anal sex in Paul Batchelor’s small Ottawa apartment. Screaming “no” and pleading for him to stop, she said she tried to crawl away.
“Curiously, no one seems to have heard her cries,” Superior Court Justice Robert Beaudoin wrote in his late June decision.
He questioned Sarah’s credibility as she was “combative and argumentative” while testifying and “gave long speeches on consent.”
He said he believed Batchelor — who was “composed and polite” throughout the trial — that Sarah had consented. Beaudoin acquitted him of sexual assault.
Ignorance Around Sexual Assault
The ignorance around sexual assault is deeply troubling. In Canada, 6/100 survivors of sexual assault report the crime to the police due to many reasons. One of the reasons is the ignorance among people, including some judges, when it comes to understanding the impact this type of crime has on the survivors’ mental and emotional health. Not only they have experienced a very personal violation but they are afraid to be the subject of further psychological and emotional battering by ignorant, insensitive, and poorly trained professionals. I welcome Bill C-3 and will state that such training should be made mandatory for not only judges but they should be extended for all lawyers and human service professionals.
