A Manitoba provincial court judge has denied a 22-year-old woman’s request to testify from behind a screen during the trial of a man accused of sexually assaulting her over two years ago.
Details of the Court Decision
Judge Wanda Garreck issued the ruling on January 23, identifying the woman only by her initials, M.B. The woman expressed fears of intimidation or retaliation from the accused if she had to face him directly in court. She sought to testify shielded by a screen, accompanied by her boyfriend, father, or a victim services worker.
The judge determined that prosecutors failed to demonstrate how these accommodations would enable the woman to provide a full and candid account. “In this particular case, there is an absence of information about how the complainant’s participation may be affected by use of testimonial aids, or whether it would impact the giving of a full and candid account,” Garreck wrote.
M.B. met the accused via a dating app. She alleges the assault occurred during their second in-person meeting in November 2023, after an initially consensual interaction. A forensic examination revealed a small internal laceration. Their relationship lasted just 10 days, with no evidence of power imbalances, prior concerning behavior, or relevant dynamics, according to the decision.
Arguments from Prosecution and Defense
Prosecutors argued that confronting the accused would likely distress M.B., who has diagnoses of anxiety and borderline personality disorder. They invoked a Criminal Code provision allowing screens or remote testimony when it serves justice. However, Garreck deemed this a general assertion lacking specifics on intimidation risks.
The defense countered that details on her mental health and fears were insufficient, emphasizing that accommodations hinge not on comfort but on facilitating truthful testimony or upholding justice. Garreck agreed, dismissing the request.
Advocates Criticize the Ruling
Alexa Barkley, a Toronto-based sexual assault survivor and advocate with End Violence Everywhere, calls the decision egregious. “That puts survivors at risk within the courtroom,” she states. “The court process itself is inherently stressful and can actually lead to post-traumatic stress disorder, so it leaves the survivor with very little, if any, protection.”
Barkley highlights the mentioned diagnoses and questions the defense’s stance on the woman’s fears given the alleged violence causing bodily harm. She notes that seeking such aids prolongs trials, risking charge dismissals due to timely trial rights. “If this was all about truth seeking, then you would give people what they needed to be able to participate,” she adds.
Karen Bellehumeur, a former Ontario Crown attorney now representing sexual assault survivors, describes the ruling as disturbing. “Being in the courtroom is a visceral experience, and having to see the accused and hear them talk about the alleged offences can almost be impossible for some people,” she says. Such decisions may deter reporting, aligning with Statistics Canada data showing only 6% of assaults reported in 2019.
Potential Reforms Ahead
Garreck acknowledged that testimonial aids could boost reporting but found no basis for them here. Recent developments offer hope: Federal Victims of Crime Ombudsperson Benjamin Roebuck’s November report urges automatic aids for fair cross-examinations. Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, proposes Criminal Code changes to provide these without court persuasion. “We’re hopeful,” Barkley says.
