Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](,dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

André Pratte is an independent senator.

The best intentions don't always make good policy. Bill C-337, currently at second reading in the Senate, is a case in point. The bill intends to make sure that judges hearing sexual-assault cases have received the proper legal and social-context training. The goal is to ensure that they are not subject to the myths and stereotypes associated with sexual-assault complainants.

In the words of the bill's author, former Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose: "Right now, we have a system whereby judges are presiding over cases, and they're not trained. That's not appropriate. It makes no sense. If you go through something as horrific as a sexual assault and you take it as far as to go to trial, I would hope you would at least have someone presiding over the trial who understands the law."

Story continues below advertisement

The bill was approved unanimously by the House of Commons and there is little doubt that it will receive the support of a very large majority of senators. Indeed, who would vote against judges being properly trained to hear sexual-assault cases? Hasn't the necessity of such training been amply demonstrated by the controversial remarks of former justice Robin Camp ("Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?"), who resigned after the Canadian Judicial Council recommended his removal?

Opinion: What the Camp decision doesn't say about our legal system

There are four reasons why I'm not in favour of this bill.

One, it aims at the wrong target. For obvious constitutional reasons, Parliament's jurisdiction over judicial-appointment requirements extends only to federal judges. However, most sexual-assault cases are heard by judges appointed by provincial governments. When Bill C-337 becomes law, it will have no effect on the training of these judges. Had it been the law of the land in the days of former justice Camp, it would not have affected him, since he was a provincial judge when he made his remarks.

Two, because the imposition of specific courses on sitting judges would have egregiously infringed on judicial independence, Ms. Ambrose decided instead that such training should be required from all lawyers applying for a federal judicial appointment. In practice, this means that each year some 500 lawyers who submit their application will have to demonstrate completion of a "recent and comprehensive" course on the matter. Out of those 500 applicants, roughly 50 will be appointed to a court under federal jurisdiction. As such, nine out of 10 seminar attendees will never sit as judges and, if they do, they will rarely if ever hear a sexual-assault case. In my view, this is a huge waste of time, money and energy, all of which will only add to our already heavily burdened legal system.

Three, the bill provides that each year, the Canadian Judicial Council will be required to make available the number of sexual-assault cases heard by judges that have not attended the sexual-assault law seminars. Based on this information, the practice of "tracking" absentee judges is open to serious abuse. This is an unacceptable infringement on the underappreciated yet fundamental principle of the independence of the judiciary.

And four, federal and provincial judges already receive sexual-assault-law and social-context training. It may be the case that even with this training, some decisions unjustly deny the victim's rights; such judgments, as unfortunate as they are, are already remediable through the appeals process. It may also be the case that some judges have not attended the training sessions or have failed to get the message. In these situations, complaints can be brought before the Canadian and provincial Judicial Councils. In addition to these available measures, the Canadian Judicial Council has announced that all initial training seminars, including sexual-assault education, will be mandatory for newly appointed federal judges.

Story continues below advertisement

Voting in favour of Bill C-337 may make us feel good as legislators. It will give us the impression that we are doing something to help the victims of sexual assault, for whom the judicial-system experience is always trying, to say the least. The truth is, once it becomes law, C-337 will not do a thing to change this sad reality. What it will do is put an additional burden on the shoulders of our legal system. More importantly, the tracking of judges – a disciplinary mechanism designed by politicians – will infringe on the principle of judicial independence, a pillar of Canadian democracy.

Robyn Doolittle explains the background of the Globe and Mail's Unfounded investigation into police handling of sexual assault allegations. The series won the international Data Journalism Awards for best investigation after spurring major shifts in public policy and new reviews from police services.

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 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 If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to

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 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 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