Myths and Stereotypes about Sexual Assault Victims: Dress


Myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims have no place in a rational and just system of law. Relying on myths and stereotypes to assess the credibility of complainants jeopardizes the court's truth-finding function.

 R. v. A.G., 2000 SCC 17, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 439, at para. 2.

Reliance on discredited stereotypes in the assessment of credibility is an error of law.

                A.R.D., 2017 ABCA 237, at para. 9.

Dress

The stereotypical assumption that “if a woman is not modestly dressed, she is deemed to consent” no longer finds a place in Canadian law”.

 R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 SCC 71, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330.

In R. v. Lacombe, 2019 ONCA 938, the complainant wore loose-fitting pajamas with no bra or underwear when she met the accused on two successive occasions during which, she claimed, the accused sexually touched her without her consent. The trial judge, in his assessment of the complainant’s credibility on the issue of whether the complainant had consented to the touching, found the complainant’s state of dress to be “significant” (though he did not explain how). On a successful Crown appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario concluded that the trial judge had relied on impermissible reasoning:  the significance that the trial judge imputed to what the complainant chose to wear when she interacted with the accused relied on impermissible reasoning, as it was rooted in a discredited stereotype.

Dress does not signify consent, nor does it justify assaultive behavior.

R. v. Lacombe, 2019 ONCA 938, at para. 39.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, Toronto.
Tel: 416-628-1942

(All rights reserved to author)




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more