Judges need training, must explain assault rulings

Summary#

This bill changes the Judges Act and the Criminal Code to address how courts handle sexual assault cases. It ties eligibility for federal judicial appointment to a promise to take continuing education on sexual assault law and social context. It requires the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) to run and report on related seminars. It also requires judges to give reasons for decisions in sexual assault cases heard without a jury.

• Limits eligibility for appointment as a federally appointed judge to those who agree to ongoing education on sexual assault law and social context (Judges Act s.3, as amended).
• Directs the CJC to develop seminars, consult appropriate groups (such as survivors), and cover consent, evidence rules, procedure, and common myths and stereotypes (Judges Act s.60(2)(b), s.60(3)).
• Requires the CJC to submit an annual report to the Minister on seminar content, dates, length, and judge attendance; the Minister must table it in Parliament (new reporting section after Judges Act s.62).
• Requires judges, in judge-alone sexual assault proceedings, to put reasons for key outcomes on the record or in writing, including acquittals and convictions; applies to listed sexual offences and historical offences of the same kind (Criminal Code, new section; Clauses 3–4).
• Applies to judge-alone proceedings only; jury trials are excluded from the reasons requirement (Criminal Code, Clause 4(4)).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • Greater transparency in sexual assault cases heard by a judge alone: the judge must give reasons for acquittals, convictions, discharges, findings of not criminally responsible, or unfitness (Criminal Code, Clause 4).
  • Public reporting on the number of judges trained and the content of their seminars may increase public insight into judicial education (Judges Act, new reporting section).

• Survivors and accused persons

  • In judge-alone sexual assault cases, reasons must be recorded or written. This can make appeal rights clearer because the basis for the decision is on the record (Criminal Code, Clauses 3–4).
  • The training content aims to address myths and stereotypes about complainants and reinforce consent and evidence rules (Judges Act s.60(3)(b)).

• Judges and judicial applicants

  • New applicants to federally appointed courts must undertake to participate in continuing education on sexual assault law and social context, including by attending CJC seminars (Judges Act s.3(b)).
  • Sitting judges will have access to CJC seminars developed with consultation and set content standards (Judges Act s.60(2)(b), s.60(3)).
  • Attendance numbers at sexual assault law seminars will be reported annually, by seminar (Judges Act, new reporting section).

• Courts and court staff

  • Judge-alone sexual assault proceedings must include reasons entered in the record. If proceedings are not recorded, reasons must be provided in writing (Criminal Code, Clause 4(3)).
  • Jury trials are not affected by the reasons requirement (Criminal Code, Clause 4(4)).

• Timing

  • Effective date: Data unavailable in the provided text. In the absence of a stated date, federal Acts often come into force on Royal Assent.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations or fees are in the bill text (Clauses 1–4).
• New mandates with potential costs, amounts not stated:
  • CJC must develop, deliver, and annually report on seminars, including consultations and specified curriculum (Judges Act s.60(2)(b), s.60(3); new reporting section). Amount: Data unavailable.
  • Courts must ensure reasons are recorded or written in judge-alone sexual assault cases (Criminal Code, Clause 4). Administrative impact: Data unavailable.
• Fiscal note: No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Improves legal accuracy in sexual assault cases by educating judges on consent rules, evidentiary limits, and proper courtroom conduct (Judges Act s.60(3)(b)).
• Reduces reliance on myths and stereotypes about complainants by requiring education on these issues (Judges Act s.60(3)(b)).
• Increases transparency and accountability by requiring judges to give reasons for key outcomes in judge-alone sexual assault cases and to put those reasons on the record or in writing (Criminal Code, Clause 4(1), 4(3)).
• Enhances public confidence through annual, public tabling of reports on seminar topics and attendance, without intruding on case outcomes (Judges Act, new reporting section).
• Respects judicial independence by leaving seminar design to the CJC, while still setting subject-matter standards and encouraging consultation with appropriate groups (Judges Act s.60(2)(b), s.60(3)).

Opponents' View#

• May be seen as pressuring judicial education choices and, by tying appointments to an undertaking, could be viewed as encroaching on judicial independence, even if the CJC controls content (Judges Act s.3(b), s.60).
• The reasons requirement could increase appeals focused on the adequacy of reasons, which may add delays and workload; the bill provides no mitigation measures (Criminal Code, Clause 4). Data on impact: Data unavailable.
• Limits of scope: the reasons requirement excludes jury trials, which leaves a transparency gap for those cases (Criminal Code, Clause 4(4)).
• Administrative burden on the CJC to consult, run seminars nationwide, and produce annual reports; no funding is specified (Judges Act s.60(3); new reporting section). Cost estimates: Data unavailable.
• Compliance uncertainty: the bill requires an “undertaking” from new appointees but sets no enforcement mechanism or sanctions for non-participation; reporting lists attendance numbers but not individual compliance (Judges Act s.3(b); new reporting section).