Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee this morning.
You have heard that I'm a law professor at the University of Calgary. I want to note I'm also a former crown prosecutor, and I was one of the complainants in the Robin Camp matter before the Canadian Judicial Council. I would also like to note that I have participated in judicial education sessions focusing on sexual assault, which have been very comprehensive in both law and social context. In my experience, the judges at those sessions have for the most part been engaged and took their training very seriously.
Nevertheless, we are currently seeing a profound lack of confidence with respect to the justice system's handling of sexual assault cases. I think it's crucial for us to keep in mind that sexual assault remains the most under-reported crime in Canada, resulting from many different barriers in the justice system. I believe training for all the players in the justice system is key to facilitating access to justice in sexual assault cases.
Turning to the specific focus of the bill, I would like to comment on two of its major aspects.
First, I would like to comment on the requirement for training on sexual assault law and context before judges can be appointed. I believe this is an important means of seeking to ensure that judges understand a relatively complex and specialized area of the law, and it's an area that many judges have had no experience in before being appointed to the bench.
Judges as the gatekeepers of the justice system must be watchful for rape myths and stereotypes that may creep into their own reasoning but also those that may be used in defence lawyer strategies and even by crown prosecutors on occasion.
Currently there's a case before the Alberta courts called Barton where the crown referred to a homicide victim as a native sex worker in front of the jury without going through the required application to introduce this as sexual history evidence under the Criminal Code. It's up to the judge to try to ensure that those improper myths and stereotypes don't come out either in their own reasons or those of the defence or crown.
In other cases, judges have made problematic assumptions about complainants' supposedly reduced inhibitions while intoxicated. They have considered intimate relationships between the accused and complainant as somehow relevant to whether consent occurred on a particular occasion.
These might appear to some people to be common-sense assumptions about sexual behaviour. However, they are rooted in myths and stereotypes that judges must guard against as they rely on false logic and discriminatory rationales.
Again, as the persons in charge of sexual assault proceedings, judges must ensure the fair trial rights of both accused persons and complainants are respected and these sorts of myths and stereotypes are rejected, whatever their source.
Specialized education on law and social context will help to equip judges to properly fulfill these obligations in sexual assault proceedings and may help to avoid needless appeals by reducing errors of law.
Second, I would like to comment on the requirement of written reasons in sexual assault proceedings. This requirement will help to ensure judicial reasoning is capable of being understood and assessed by the accused, the crown, the complainant, and members of the public.
We must recognize sexual assault cases like other criminal cases are not simply matters between private parties. They involve systemic issues that require the ability of the public to access and understand judicial decisions. It's been noted that most members of the public don't have access to trial transcripts supporting the requirement that judicial decisions should be written and published in accessible formats.
I believe the bill could go further and require written reasons not just when a verdict is reached but also for interim applications in sexual assault proceedings such as rulings on sexual history evidence. However, it has also been noted that we must recognize that the requirement of written reasons will have an impact on judicial resources at a time when these resources are already strained. If the bill is passed, consideration should be given to ensuring adequate judicial resources to enable the written reasons requirement to be implemented.
Thank you, and I look forward to the questions of the committee.