In a recent Manitoba provincial court ruling, Judge Wanda Garreck rejected a 22-year-old woman’s request to testify behind a screen in the trial of a man charged with sexually assaulting her over two years ago.
Case Background
The woman, identified only as M.B., connected with the accused through a dating app. She alleges the assault took place during their second in-person meeting in November 2023, after an initially consensual interaction. A forensic examination confirmed a small internal laceration. The relationship lasted just 10 days, with no signs of power imbalance, prior concerning behavior, or relevant dynamics.
Details of the Testimony Request
M.B. expressed concerns about facing the accused in court, fearing intimidation or retaliation. She requested a screen for privacy along with support from her boyfriend, father, or a victim services worker.
The Crown bore the burden to show these measures would enable a full and candid account. However, Judge Garreck found insufficient evidence. “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,” the judge stated in the January 23 decision.
The Crown argued that confronting the accused typically causes distress for sexual assault complainants and cited M.B.’s diagnoses of anxiety and borderline personality disorder. A Criminal Code provision allows screens or remote testimony, but such orders require specific justification, not automatic approval.
The defence countered that details on her mental health and fears of intimidation lacked substantiation. The judge agreed the focus is not witness comfort but whether aids meet the low threshold for aiding truthful testimony or serving justice.
Advocates Raise Alarms
Alexa Barkley, a Toronto-based sexual assault survivor and advocate with End Violence Everywhere (EVE), described the decision as among the most egregious in denying testimonial aids. “That puts survivors at risk within the courtroom,” Barkley stated. She warned that courtroom stress can trigger post-traumatic stress disorder, while facing the accused may impair testimony due to physical responses.
Barkley called the defence’s dismissal of M.B.’s fears “mind-boggling,” given the alleged violence causing bodily harm. She noted requests for aids often delay trials, heightening risks of charges being stayed to protect timely trial rights. “If this was all about truth seeking, then you would give people what they needed to be able to participate,” she added.
Emerging Legal Changes
Reforms show promise. In November, federal ombudsperson for victims of crime Benjamin Roebuck issued a report accusing Canada’s justice system of retraumatizing sexual abuse survivors. He urged easier access to testimonial aids, including during cross-examinations.
The federal government’s Protecting Victims Act (Bill C-16), tabled in December, proposes Criminal Code amendments for sexual and intimate partner violence cases. It would provide aids without prior court approval. “We’re hopeful,” Barkley said.
Expert Critique and Broader Impact
Karen Bellehumeur, a former Ontario Crown attorney who now supports sexual assault survivors, labeled the ruling disturbing. “It’s a visceral experience,” she explained, noting that seeing and hearing the accused recount alleged offenses can overwhelm witnesses, potentially causing them to withdraw.
Statistics Canada data reveals only 6% of sexual assaults were reported in 2019. Rulings like this may fuel the unreported majority, Bellehumeur cautioned. Judge Garreck acknowledged aids could boost reporting and participation but ruled they did not justify approval here.
