The Divisional Court Rules that Questions that Reflect Rape Myths Gave Rise to a Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Jan 30, 2017
December 16, 2016
The Divisional Court has ruled that a victim of sexual assault is entitled to a new hearing at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board due to questioning from the Board that appeared to reflect rape myth reasoning.
The Court found that the Board Member took an adversarial approach when questioning the Appellant, including by pursuing questions about why the victim did not scream or physically resist the assault, why she did not immediately report the assault to the police, and why she continued to associate with the alleged offender after the assault. The Court concluded that these questions, coupled with the Board Member’s physical displays of disbelief while the Appellant was testifying, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Board.
SG v Ontario (Criminal Injuries Compensation Board)