Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Ontario’s Attorney-General has chosen not to contest the appeal of the first sexual-assault victim in Canada to be convicted of violating a publication ban on her own identity.

A lawyer for the Attorney-General did not apologize or express regret in Ontario Superior Court on Thursday for the prosecution of the victim, who had been sexually assaulted by her ex-husband. Lawyer Julia Forward instead cited a technical reason for dropping the case – the charge had been laid under the wrong section of the Criminal Code.

The case put a spotlight on the justice system’s treatment of sexual-assault complainants and victims, and led to calls for legislative changes from the federal and provincial governments, and improved training of police, lawyers and judges in sexual-assault law and the struggles of survivors.

Story continues below advertisement

It was the victim’s ex-husband, who had been sentenced to a year in jail, who brought the case to the attention of police. The judge’s ruling in his case was not published, and the woman asked court services for a copy. She then shared the unredacted copy it provided with friends and family, and the ex-husband learned of what she had done.

Publication bans are routinely applied to the names of complainants in sexual-assault cases under a decades-old federal law aimed at encouraging victims to come forward. In this case, the ban covered the offender’s name to protect the victim’s identity.

“The law was twisted and turned around and actually used as a weapon and a way to continue to exert power and control over a survivor of sexual assault,” Sara Casselman, executive director of the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region, said in an interview.

She said that the prosecution risked a chilling effect on other sexual-assault survivors, who “felt like they would be treated the same way if they approached the criminal-justice system.”

Robin Parker, an appeal lawyer for the victim, said the federal government should amend the Criminal Code to require that the complainant be consulted on a publication ban, preferably by the judge. She also urged changes that would set out a free, straightforward procedure for lifting publication bans, and greater clarity in the law to reflect that a publication ban is meant to protect the complainant, not the offender.

“People who have experienced sexual violence should be free to choose to keep their identity private, or to speak openly about what happened to them,” she said in an e-mail after the court hearing. “Right now the system is paternalistic and confusing.”

The Ontario Crown’s decision means the victim, a mother of two in her 40s, will not have a criminal record and will be refunded the $2,600 fine she paid (including a $600 surcharge for victim services), after being convicted on March 17.

Story continues below advertisement

Ms. Forward told Superior Court Justice Paul Sweeny on Thursday morning that the charge against the Kitchener woman had been laid under the wrong section of the Criminal Code and that the case could not be reprosecuted because the time limit on laying the proper charge had lapsed.

The charge was laid under Section 127 of the Criminal Code, which makes it a crime to disobey a judge’s order. But the section is not supposed to be used where “a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law.” In this case, Section 486.6 of the Criminal Code sets out the offence of breaching a publication ban.

Ms. Parker, an appeal lawyer for the victim, along with Karen Symes, thanked Ms. Forward for “recognizing that an injustice was done” and thanked her and the court for acting expeditiously to rectify that injustice.

She told the court that no crime was committed and that the case should never have gotten as far as it did.

“The law is clear that it is not a breach of a publication ban to e-mail a decision to a small group,” she said. She wondered “how this case got this far without someone asking, ‘Is this in the public interest?’ "

Justice Sweeny made no comment on the prosecution of the victim.

Story continues below advertisement

While it is possible for victims to ask a judge to lift a publication ban, in this case the victim did not want the ban lifted. Ms. Parker said the victim was not in court when the ban was imposed, and her consent for the ban was not requested. Nor was the ban ever explained to or discussed with her, she told the court.

The Ministry of the Attorney-General, which oversees prosecutions, brought in a Crown attorney from London, Brian White, so the local Crown office in Kitchener, which prosecuted the sexual assault, would not be in a conflict of interest.

The appeal was unusual in that the woman had pleaded guilty to violating the publication ban and, after a joint submission on sentencing by Mr. White and defence counsel Valeria Ruoso, accepted the fine. A transcript shows that Ontario Provincial Court Justice Thomas McKay chided her: “I know that a crime such as this, it is particularly personal and people have a reaction to that. That being said, court orders have to be followed, particularly ones that deal with people’s privacy.”

When Ms. Parker read of the conviction, she contacted the woman and filed an appeal on her behalf.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies