Judiciary Compromised by Biased Assumptions
Does there not need to be consistency in decisions by a body like the Canadian Judicial Council? How can you reconcile judicial decisions where the Council recommends removal of judges for victim-blaming comments with decisions where comments of a similar nature, reinforcing the same stereotypes, did not result in the same outcome?The purpose of this commentary is to compare and contrast two high profile cases, R v. Wagar, and R v. Ewanchuk.
