Canadian True Crime - Kelly Favro's Story—Part 2

Episode Date: March 7, 2023

Content warning: This series includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence. Please see resources below.Victoria, British Columbia[Part 2 of 2] Kelly Favro learns she is not alone. Along the way, she meets other sexual assault survivors who also discovered publication bans had been put on their names without their consent - including Jade Neilson and Samantha Geiger. They all experienced negative impacts in completely separate ways, but they agreed that no other sexual assault survivors should have to go through the same experience of law-enforced silence and isolation that they’ve been told is for their own good.Special thanks to Kelly Favro, Jade Neilson and Samantha Geiger.---------------------------------------------------------------SIGN THE PETITION Sign the petition now to give victim-complainants more agency and choice when it comes to publication bans on their names.Deadline: 9am EST on March 10th, 2023Follow on twitter: @AmendPubBanLaws Visit website: www.MyVoiceMyChoice.orgMore information:Samantha Geiger’s storyJade Neilson’s storyMorrell Andrews’ story and victim impact statementCourt document removing Kelly's publication banResources for Sexual Violence and Abuse:REES CommunityEnding Violence CanadaListen ad-free and early:CTC premium feeds are available on Amazon Music - included with Prime, Apple Podcasts, Patreon and Supercast. For the full list of resources, information sources, and credits:See the page for this episode at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Introducing Uber Teen Accounts, an Uber account for your teen with enhanced safety features. Your teen can request a ride with top-rated drivers, and you can track every trip on the live map in the Uber app. Uber Teen Accounts, invite your teen to join your Uber account today. Available in select locations. See app for details. Canadian True Crime is a completely independent production funded mainly through advertising. You can listen to Canadian True Crime ad-free and early on Amazon Music included with Prime, Apple Podcasts, Patreon, and Supercast. The podcast often has disturbing content and coarse language. It's not for everyone. This is part two of a two-part series, an additional content warning. This series

includes graphic details of sexual assault that might be difficult to listen to. If you or anyone you know is experiencing sexual violence and abuse, help is available. Please see the show notes for resources. Where we left off, Callie Favreau had survived a two-hour sexual assault at the hands of Ken Erickson, a man she'd been casually dating for six weeks. She reported it to the police. Ken was found guilty of sexual assault at trial and his appeal was dismissed. Kelly was bothered that after all of that, Ken's name was still not searchable on the CSO, British Columbia's court services online website. It allows all users to easily search and view court record information and documents going back decades. And Kelly knew that the CSO was

increasingly being used as a precaution by women who are about to meet a man in person for the first time. If anyone searched up Ken's name, she wanted it to come up so they could be properly informed, and she didn't know why it wasn't. Callie learned that her name had been under publication ban for five years, and she not only didn't consent to it but she had no idea at all. She was also shocked to learn that there is no requirement for the Crown to advise or request consent from the complainant in advance nor is there any requirement to inform them afterwards that their name is now under publication ban. But that wasn't all.

Kelly discovered that she would have faced very serious consequences if she violated the publication ban that she had no idea had been placed on her name. If she told her story and identified herself as the survivor, either publicly or privately, she risked being fined up to $5,000 and sentenced to two years in jail, and there was no legal requirement to tell her about any of this either. And Kelly couldn't help but compare this potential $5,000 fine for violating a publication ban to the fine Ken received as part of his sentence for sexually assaulting her, a mere $100. Kelly's next thought was this. If the publication ban was on her name, why was Ken's name not showing up on the CSO website? She learnt that in cases where the complainant and the accused could be linked together,

then the court may decide that both names needed to be hidden, because publishing the name of the accused might inadvertently reveal who the complainant was. As you'll recall from Part 1, As you'll recall from part one, a man in the Kitchener-Waterloo area of Ontario was convicted of violently sexually assaulting his ex-wife as their children slept nearby. After the trial, the ex-wife emailed the court document to a small group of family and friends, which resulted in him complaining to the courts that she violated a publication ban. The thing was, it wasn't even his name under the ban. It was her name, the sexual assault survivor who deserved privacy and protection from possible negative consequences. But because she was married to the accused, she could be linked to him, so his name was hidden as well. This may have made sense to Kelly in that situation, but not in hers. She and Ken were far from married,

they'd only been dating casually for six weeks, yet the publication ban put in place to protect her privacy as sexual assault survivor inadvertently benefited him as well. Kelly continued to research publication bans and their application when it came to sexual assault complainants. She learned that they are simply a protection available to them, and that the ban has no impact to the administration of justice. Given this, she felt strongly that a person found guilty of sexual assault should not get to hide behind their complainant's publication ban. If the trial had attracted media attention, no media outlet would have been able to publish Ken's identity

unless they argued before court that it was in the public interest and the judge allowed it. So with no media reporting, there was no way for anyone in Ken's life to know he was a convicted sex offender unless he actually told them himself. And Kelly's biggest concern was that there was no way for anyone new entering his life to know this either, that he could still pose a potential danger. If, for example, someone who met Ken on a dating website searched his name, nothing would come up, which might give them a false sense of security. They wouldn't find out he'd been convicted for sexual assault.

There was no way for them to know that the judge noted he denied his guilt and wasn't willing to acknowledge the crime he'd committed. There was no evidence that he had successfully rehabilitated himself and while he would be on the sex offender registry for 10 years, it's not available to the public. registry for 10 years, it's not available to the public. Kelly understood the need for publication bans, but she never requested one for herself, nor did she agree to one. And she discovered that even if there was no publication ban in place, her name wouldn't have shown up on the CSO anyway, because it doesn't identify complainants or survivors, only the accused. All court cases and associated documents are named after the accused and when the complainant is under publication ban, only their initials are used in the court document. Kelly wondered, if the CSO

doesn't ever identify the complainant regardless of publication ban, what's the point of hiding the name of the accused? It seemed to defy logic. The publication ban may have been ordered to protect Kelly's identity, but she did not experience it as a protection. To Kelly, the publication ban removed her personal agency and took away her right to speak about her own lived experience, while also protecting the name of the man who brutalized her, and all without her consent. The whole thing only served to re-victimize her and reinforce shame in the notion that anonymity always equals protection. Kelly wanted that publication ban gone. She didn't want anyone else to go through a similar ordeal with Ken Erickson, and she also felt strongly that it should be her decision

to publicly associate herself with her own sexual assault case. She deserved to have the publishing rights to her own name and story. It was a matter of principle. name and story. It was a matter of principle. According to the justice.gc.ca website's fact sheet on publication bans, quote, the victim, witness or justice system participant may later decide that he or she no longer wants to continue the publication ban. He or she must then ask the court for an order to end it and to state how the circumstances that made the order necessary have changed. It seemed like it would probably be a straightforward process so Kelly got to work to get that publication ban removed from her name and she assumed by extension Ken's name. The police constables that Kelly contacted suggested

that since the Crown prosecutor had requested the publication ban, they might be the person to contact to have it removed. But the Crown advised her that although they wouldn't object to her request, they could not help her with the process and she was given no guidance about who could. Kelly had started to notice that there wasn't much information available about the process for getting publication bans removed. She realised it's probably because it is rarely ever done. When she first contacted Victoria Court Scheduling, she asked them how she could get the ban removed, and if successful, would that mean that Ken's name would become searchable on the CSO? They didn't reply to that message, so she circled back, and this time she did receive a reply. They told her that to get a ban removed from a file, she needs to make an application to the court and discuss it with a specific judge.

They didn't respond to her second question, though. Kelly's expectation was that if she was able to have that publication ban removed from her name, it would mean that Kenz would show up on the CSO when searched. show up on the CSO when searched. Unfortunately, she would find out that this isn't the case, but at this time, no one informed her otherwise. In any event, when Kelly confirmed that she wanted to apply, she was sent an online application to fill out that turned out to be broken. She had to do some more digging around to get the email address of an appropriate person to send the form information directly to. That person replied to tell Kelly her application had been forwarded to the judge and followed up with a strange question. Would Ken Erickson's lawyer be representing him in this application? Kelly couldn't believe it. Not only was it a highly

inappropriate question to ask a survivor, but it seemed to imply that the court was going to give Ken a say in whether the publication ban was removed from her name. And this is how it would go for Kelly. Just as she thought she was clear on the process to have her publication ban removed, she would discover there was one more form she had to fill out, another application she had to make. While Kelly Favreau continued to work at getting her own publication ban removed, she had no idea that only about 20 minutes drive from where she lived in Victoria, there was another survivor fighting her own battle. Samantha Geiger lived in the small town of Sooke, and in May of 2020, she reported to police that her now ex-boyfriend had sexually

assaulted her. His name is Benjamin Kenmare, and as Samantha would later say to Check News, quote, he raped me and left me in a pool of my own blood. After the attack, she'd confided in her friends, but because she and Ben shared mutual friends, it wasn't long before the news spread to the rest of his friend group. They resorted to old school stereotypes that women are lying opportunists who shouldn't be believed without a lot of scrutiny. They started harassing Samantha online, posting her name publicly and attacking her character on social media, calling her crazy and a liar. When Ben was charged with sexual assault the following month, June of 2020, the attacks and harassment didn't stop. In fact,

they became more frequent. Samantha's name was also put under publication ban without her knowledge or consent, but she at least knew about it by the time the trial started. At trial, Samantha testified that she pleaded with Ben to stop more than once, but he continued the sexual encounter. The defense's case was that he didn't mean to rape her. When the judge found Ben Kenmare guilty of sexual assault, Samantha was of course vindicated and also relieved. She assumed Ben's name would soon be searchable on the CSO website as clear proof of what happened, available to all, and the town would have to accept the truth. She desperately hoped that she would finally be able to stop living in fear,

looking over her shoulder, scared to be alone. But the opposite happened. The harassment went into overdrive, and Samantha was accused of things that were nothing more than vicious lies. It appeared that Ben Kenmare had told his friends his version of what happened, not the full story as established at trial. And despite his guilty verdict, his name was not coming up on a search of the CSO. Even though it was her name put under publication ban, Ben's name was hidden as well, because she could be linked to him since they were dating at the time of the assault. A publication ban only stops publication though. It can't do much to stop gossip and rumours, especially in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. Thanks to Ben's friends, it didn't take long before the word got around, and Samantha found herself facing attacks from a wider group of Sook

townspeople. People she grew up with suddenly turned on her, insisting that if Ben Kenmerit really was guilty of sexual assault, there would be proof of it on the CSO website, and the fact that nothing was coming up was apparently proof that Samantha was lying. Along with her friends, Samantha tried to defend herself from the online attacks as much as she could, but it was virtually impossible. The criminal justice system had introduced the publication ban to protect her privacy as the survivor of sexual assault, but it was now being weaponized against her. If she spoke out to defend herself, she faced serious consequences, including jail time, but the people choosing to attack her faced nothing. Instead of a shield, the publication

ban had become a sword. Samantha considered moving to a different area, but it was 2021. She looked at the rapidly increasing real estate prices and realized she could not afford to move. And besides, she was the victim, not him, and she would not be chased out of the town she grew up in, the town where her family lived. For reasons unknown to Samantha, there ended up being a six-month delay between the guilty verdict and Ben Kenmare's sentencing hearing. He would be sentenced to six months in jail, with 18 months probation and 10 years on the sex offender registry. Because of the publication ban though, Samantha couldn't even talk about the end of the trial process with her friends or family, let alone celebrate. It was supposed to provide protection, but it ended up being a new tangent

of victimization. She decided to investigate the process to have the publication ban be removed. Hi everyone. Today we're talking passion projects that turn into careers, a topic that obviously resonates quite a bit with me. In collaboration with the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative, I want to introduce you to someone who took his passion for cannabis, turned it into a career and is now an industry trailblazer. This is Nico Soziak. He's the chief financial officer of Canara Biotech, a prominent producer based in Montreal. Nico, I know that you've had a passion for cannabis for quite a few years, but you seem a lot younger than what I was expecting. I have to know how and when you got into the cannabis business. Yeah, absolutely. I look younger, but I'm aging by the day. But no, I'm 35 years old. I got into cannabis about five years ago. I started with Canara.

But you were a consumer before that. Yeah, I've been a consumer. I had friends in the legacy side of the business and watched what they did. I tried the different strains and genetics, watched how they grew, really found a passion for cannabis and the products. But my professional career is an accountant. So while I had a passion for cannabis, I was also a straight A student. Wow. And then Canada decided to legalize cannabis. And that was when I was like, okay, this is kind of my calling. I have to try to figure out how do I can get into the industry. And Canara had just became a public

company. I joined them in April, 2019 and built the finance department here at Canara and worked with the founder. And at one point I was given the keys to that. And now I'm here today. I was given the keys to that and now I'm here today. Wow, that's such a cool story. So how do you feel about being called a trailblazer in the legal market now? It's an honor. I've looked up to many trailblazers in this industry today that come from the legacy side that went to legal. You know, I'm happy to be part of that.

Actually, I wanted to ask you about the legacy market. How did you incorporate it into operations on the legal side? I don't pretend that the cannabis market just got created in 2017, right? For me, legacy means that everyone that's been working, all the businesses that have been in the industry pre-legalization. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel in terms of thinking I know what consumers want. There's been an industry that's been built for many, many, many years. So it's all the ideas and creations that were pre-legalization, figuring out how do we evolve that into the legal side with all the regulatory frameworks. What would you say is the best part of working in the legal market?

Knowing that your product is clean, knowing what you're consuming, we're ensuring quality, we're ensuring the price. I think we're ahead of other industries. Okay, so final question. What gets you excited to go to work every day? This is my dream. This is my passion. I get excited. Work doesn't feel like work for me. When you're creating things that you dream about, I give the idea to the team. The team is able to execute different innovations. That's what really gets me excited. Thanks for listening to this Trailblazers story, brought to you by the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative. If you like the trail Nico Soziak is blazing, you will love what's happening in legal cannabis. Visit

ocs.ca slash trailblazers to learn more. In the meantime, Callie Favreau was making progress in her quest to have her own publication ban removed. She had to jump through many hoops, in a process that was far from clear, and the goalpost kept moving. After submitting the application form to appear before a specific judge, she learned that she needed to write an affidavit, and submit it to the Supreme Court before the appearance with the judge. She had no idea what to do about any of this and asked the Crown for advice, who put her in touch with a lawyer to help her write the required affidavit. She could not believe how ridiculous the situation was and started going

out of her way to breach her publication ban as publicly as she could. At a speaking engagement in 2021, Kelly stood on the lawn of the BC legislature holding a microphone and told 200 women gathered that Ken Erickson had sexually assaulted her and if the police wanted to arrest her for speaking about it, she would welcome that. She was so fed up with being muzzled without her consent that she actually hoped to get arrested, because at least then it would bring media attention to her cause. Callie did not get arrested, and in June of 2021, she submitted her written affidavit to the Supreme Court. The final stage of the process was a week later, a 75-minute phone hearing with Justice Gall.

He started by reviewing Kelly's affidavit, where she wrote, quote, A publication ban was obtained by Crown counsel in respect of the prosecution of these two sexual assaults. I did not seek the ban on publication, nor did I consent to the application to obtain the ban. I understand that bans on publication are ordered in cases like this to protect my privacy and to ensure that the accused has a fair trial. I do not need or wish to have my privacy protected in this matter any longer. I volunteer in the areas of victims' rights, and it is important for me that people know that I am prepared to make public

my identity as a victim of a sexual assault, and important that the identity of the accused is also made public. Justice Gall stated that Kelly Favreau has made it patently clear that she wants to be free to speak her truth and publicly confirmed that she was the person Ken Erickson sexually assaulted. The judge summarised the response from Ken's legal team. Even though his name wasn't under publication ban, he was still entitled to provide a response to Kelly's application, which the court had to take into consideration. According to Justice Gall, Ken claimed he'd been harassed on social media

and via text message by people who he believed were aware that he'd been found guilty of sexually assaulting Kelly. He preferred the publication ban remain in place so that the case didn't attract any more attention. The judge said he wasn't persuaded that Ken's concerns would outweigh Kelly Favreau's own request. He determined that in cases like this, where a survivor asks to have the publication ban removed so they can openly discuss and publish details of the offence and identify themselves as the victim, the request should be respected and granted. He said that he could find no reason why Callie Favreau should be prohibited from publishing the fact that she was the victim who was sexually assaulted by Ken Erickson. With that, Justice Gall officially removed the publication ban on Callie Favreau's name, stating that she can now self-identify as the victim, and others can also publish her name and identify her as the victim.

He told the court that Kelly is the first person in the province of British Columbia to have a publication ban removed herself, without hiring a lawyer and without the help of a third party like a media outlet. He added, quote, this will likely set a precedent. He added, quote, The trial may not have attracted media attention, but this historic decision did. Kelly told Victoria News that her autonomy had been taken away the first time by the sexual assault, and a second time when the publication ban was placed on her name without her consent. And the end result of the ordeal to have it removed was that she was left feeling re-victimized by the criminal justice system. Kelly was going to be continuing the fight on

behalf of other survivors who might come across the same issues. She stated that a publication ban should only be ordered when the complainant explicitly consents to it. It should not be ordered by the Crown as a matter of course, and if the complainant wants to remove it, she said there should be a simple procedure, not the convoluted and frustrating process she experienced. It took several days and a few phone calls, but finally, Kelly saw Ken Erickson's name was visible on the CSO website. As she told Victoria News, quote, I don't want to ruin my attacker's life, but I want people to know there is a sex offender in the area who's been hiding under a publication ban for five years. And there's probably more. There certainly were more.

During this time, Callie had joined a community of sexual assault survivors, linked to an anonymous Instagram account called Survivor Stories Project. The account had started off small, providing a safe space for victims to come forward and tell their stories, but it soon blew up, exposing alleged sexual predators on Vancouver Island and alerting other women about people they needed to watch out for. Through this group, Kelly soon learned that her experience was not unique. She met several other women in her area with similar stories, survivors of sexual assault who had their identity put under publication ban without their consent and could not figure out how to have it removed.

Their stories were different, and the publication ban had negatively impacted their lives in different ways, but Kelly wanted to help them all. It was in this group that she met Samantha Geiger and heard about her ongoing struggles in her small town thanks to the false rumours and gossip spread by the supporters of her ex-boyfriend, Ben Kenmare. Samantha ended up hiring her own lawyer via legal aid to remove her publication ban, and even then the process was long and drawn out. And just like in Kelly's case, Ben Kenmare's defence counsel was permitted to make submissions in court about Samantha's publication ban, a protection available to her and her alone. Even when the name of the accused is hidden because it could be linked, the government

maintains that the publication ban has no impact on the administration of justice and nothing at all to do with the accused. So when it comes to the hearing to have the publication ban removed, why then does the court consider the defense's opinion relevant at all? And if a person accused or found guilty of sexual assault had been inadvertently enjoying the same protection afforded to their victim, why would they ever argue in favor of having it removed? Samantha would later tell the Vancouver Island Free Daily, quote, It was like I needed permission from my rapist to talk about this and lift it, which isn't okay. It was meant to protect me, and all it did was protect him. It took months, but Samantha's publication ban was removed in October of 2022, and she was finally able to defend herself with the facts of her attack

as established at trial, instead of her attacker's version of the story alone. She would report that while the harassment from townspeople didn't go away altogether, it did decline significantly, and she felt the community was slowly coming around. In the meantime, Callie Favreau realized that there was even more that she had to fight for. As she met survivors like Samantha and exchanged details of their journeys, it occurred to her that even though her publication ban had been removed, she had nothing to show for it other than her word. And it wasn't for lack of trying. Justice Gall had delivered his decision orally, and Callie hadn't been given any documentation from that hearing.

So after Ken's sentencing, she had contacted the courts to request transcripts of the trial judge's decisions. She was deterred by confusing brick walls and a number of ambiguous processes because of the publication ban. Now that it had been removed, Kelly searched Canadian legal websites, including Canley, hoping that there would have been something uploaded about her case as proof of the decision. Her search came up empty. She was incredibly disappointed. She had worked so hard to be able to speak out about her sexual assault and name herself as the survivor, and she wanted to help and advocate for others. But there was nothing on the public record to back up her story, nothing to show other survivors that might be able to help them with

their own journeys. Kelly decided to try again. She wrote to the BC courts to request a written transcript of the judge's decision to have her publication ban removed. With no ban in the way, it should have been a straightforward process. But Kelly knew better than that. Nothing about the criminal justice system is straightforward. As she continued to work on a solution to the latest hurdle, Kelly continued to connect with other sexual assault survivors in similar situations. She helped them whenever she could, and explained her convoluted journey to get a publication ban removed that had been ordered without her consent. She met Jade Nielsen, yet another survivor located in British Columbia. Jade grew up on

one of the tiny gulf islands between Vancouver Island and the mainland. And that's where she was sexually abused by a man in a position of authority. In 2007, when Jade was just 12 years old, a man in his 20s who volunteered at a youth program she attended started paying her special attention. She was groomed over the next two years and the sexual abuse started when she was 14, continuing over the course of about a year. Jade decided to come forward and report the abuse in March of 2021. It was 12 years later, but the courts recognized that survivors often face fear, shame and guilt that prevents them from coming forward, especially if they were young at the time of the abuse.

For this reason, there is no longer a statute of limitations for prosecution of sexual assault. Survivors can file a complaint at any time. fault. Survivors can file a complaint at any time. The reason why Jade decided to come forward was that she learned the man who abused her was again working at the same youth center, and she realized that other young people could be at risk. He was close with the owners of the center, and while his new role didn't involve him working directly with children and youths, he was still on site with them. Jade wanted to prevent anyone else being hurt the same way she'd been hurt, so she made a difficult decision to report her abuse to the police. She expected to have a very rough time as a participant in the criminal justice system, and unfortunately, she would find it even worse

than she expected. But she wants to point out that it wasn't because of the police. Just like Kelly, Jade felt like she was heard and believed when she gave her statement. It's worth noting that they both reported to women constables. The man who abused Jade was charged and arrested, and then released on what's called a police undertaking with conditions. He wasn't allowed to speak with Jade, and he also wasn't permitted to be around anyone under the age of 16 with no adult present. It was just a few months after that that Jade's experience as a participant in the criminal justice system took a negative turn. The Crown, allocated to prosecute her case, told her that her identity had been placed under publication ban, obviously without her knowledge or consent.

ban, obviously without her knowledge or consent. Jade said she didn't want that. In a later interview with Goldstream News Gazette, Jade would say that the Crown provided a convincing argument that the publication ban on her identity would be in her best interest, and the only guidance she was given was, quote, I was told that it would be best if I didn't speak to any of the other witnesses, which was something that I really struggled with because these are basically my family and all my childhood friends. I was kind of excavating this stuff again and I wanted to talk about it because it's top of mind for me. Jade says the Crown gave her no other details or clarity on how the publication ban might affect her, including the consequences for breaching it. In the lead-up to the scheduled trial, Jade discovered that the man who abused her was still working at the youth

centre. He had been released from jail on the condition that he wasn't to be around anyone under 16 without another adult present. But again, he had a close relationship with the owners of the centre. Were they even taking the situation seriously? Jade reported it to the RCMP, but they referred her to the Youth Centre's licensing board, who said that it didn't fall under their scope, and referred her back to the RCMP. She wasn't able to find anyone who would claim ownership of enforcing the intent of the conditions of her abuser's release from jail. abuser's release from jail. A week before the scheduled trial, the Crown Prosecutor contacted Jade with some distressing news. She was told that the evidence was unlikely to return a guilty verdict, and if she went ahead with the trial, her friends and family would have to testify in

her defense for what would likely be a lost cause jade had specific concerns in that area and she definitely didn't want to put them through that for no reason according to the crown a peace bond was her only realistic option the government of canada justice website states that a peace bond can be used in situations where a defendant appears likely to commit a criminal offence, but there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has actually been committed. The peace bond is effectively a form of resolution, a restraining order where the accused agrees to keep the peace in exchange for the criminal charges being withdrawn with no finding of guilt. A peace bond wasn't the outcome Jade wanted and she couldn't see how it would be

a resolution for anything in her case. Her experience with sexual abuse was long over and she had no ongoing issue with the man that required him to agree to keep the peace. The reason she reported her abuse to police in the first place was that she didn't want him to work with kids or youth anymore. That is the outcome she wanted. But Jade says when she told the Crown her concerns, there was little empathy extended to her. She was told, quote, I know this is hard for you, but it's hard for him as well. Jade would say her experience dealing with the Crown prosecutor assigned to her case was extremely negative. She was left to feel that no one was on her side. There was no one working in

her interests. The accused had his own defense lawyer, but Crown prosecutors don't work for the And Jade felt confident and capable enough to advocate for herself, but the problem was she felt a power differential in her dealings with the Crown. felt a power differential in her dealings with the Crown. When she did relay her concerns, she felt the Crown was dismissive and didn't take them seriously. And then, she started policing herself, feeling that she couldn't ask too many questions because then she might upset the Crown, or the Crown might think of her as an annoyance and it might negatively affect the outcome of her case. It seemed that the Crown had all the power over how her case would proceed. When the Crown brought up the peace bond, Jade put all her cards on the table. There were only three things she really cared about, three outcomes she wanted to achieve. One, that her abuser wouldn't be permitted to work with kids

or youth anymore. Two, that he took some ownership or accountability for the abuse. And three, Jade wanted the publication ban removed from her name so she could talk about her lived experience again. She'd asked several times about having it removed already, but there was always pushback. When she tried to explain why it was in the public's best interest to remove the ban, the Crown, who co-orchestrated the peace bond, had the audacity to tell her that the three years of grooming and sexual abuse she reported to police were just allegations. Another time, she was told she would have to wait until proceedings were over. So now was the time. The Crown responded to the effect that these things were all okay.

The peace bond hearing was a joint submission by the Crown Prosecutor and the Defence Council for the accused. The basic foundation of a peace bond is that the complainant fears for their safety, and the defence has to make an admission that there is a valid reason for the complainant to fear the accused. He called in by phone and his lawyer provided this confirmation, but Jade was dismayed that there was no real ownership or accountability for the three years of grooming and sexual abuse she'd experienced. In exchange for the charges being withdrawn, the accused agreed not to contact or go near Jade or her mom and not own any weapons, but there was no condition preventing him from working with or being around children or youths. And at one point, Jade thought she might be hearing things when his defence lawyer said to the judge, I ask that you find him not guilty. This wasn't a trial. How could anyone find him not guilty? Afterwards, the Crown confirmed that the administrative method used to have the charges withdrawn in this case

involved a notation that the accused was not guilty of those charges. Jade was told this apparently meant the same thing in legal terms and it wasn't a big deal, but to her it was. She was the complainant and seeing not guilty next to the file of the man who abused her without him going through the necessary trial felt like a slap in the face. A peace bond is only active for one year maximum and if there was no breach and no new complaints, then he would finish the year ending up in exactly the same position he was in before he was arrested, with no conditions and nothing on his criminal record. Jade wasn't at all pleased about this, but at least the publication ban had been lifted, right?

pleased about this, but at least the publication ban had been lifted, right? Wrong. When she asked what happened there, the Crown was extremely rude and dismissive, and told her she had to apply to have the ban removed as a separate process. Jade was told on no uncertain terms that there was nothing the Crown could do to help her, and she had to get her own lawyer to help her remove the publication ban. She couldn't believe how things had turned out. As a young teenager, she'd been victimised by an older man in a position of authority, and the end result of her reporting it is that he was let off easy on a peace bond, while she was effectively punished for life, banned from ever speaking out about her personal experience, either publicly or privately,

or face serious consequences. She would later say to the Goldstream News Gazette, quote, the only real outcome was that I was not allowed to talk about my experience, The only real outcome was that I was not allowed to talk about my experience, which just seems crazy to me. For all her participation in the criminal justice system, Jade had actually ended up in a worse position than before she reported her abuse to the police. When Jade Nielsen first connected with Kelly Favreau, Kelly was still trying to get the transcript of the reasons for judgment from her publication ban hearing. She'd never heard back from the BC court, so she wrote to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General in British Columbia, the PSSG, to request that they make the court document public so that Ken's name would be searchable on the CSO. She never received a response to that either. She and Jade commiserated together about their harrowing experiences in the criminal justice system and decided to work together to help each other achieve their respective goals. Because Callie had already been through the process, she provided her affidavit and other supporting documentation to Jade,

so she wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. She also connected her with a legal society lawyer to help her write the affidavit. Jade was able to organize all the items and then arrange to appear before a specific judge, just like Kelly had. But the judge rejected her application, citing a rule of law that effectively meant Jade had to appear before a different judge. The information and guidance was as clear as mud, and Jade made a lot of phone calls to figure out her next step, but also to share her frustration and disbelief. There were massive inefficiencies. No one seemed to know the end-to-end process, and there were a lot of referrals and buck passing. Jade had a call with the independent ombudsperson, who referred her back to the Provincial Attorney General at the time, David Eby, who is now the Premier of British Columbia.

She left a message with him and wrote emails to several provincial MLAs, as well as several government officials. Because her identity was under publication ban, she couldn't even identify herself, so she had to sign off with this sentence, quote, I would like to share this letter, penned anonymously out of an abundance of caution due to the publication ban that prohibits the victim from identifying herself. No responses were forthcoming. No responses were forthcoming. Jade spoke to two different Supervisory Crown Councils on Vancouver Island, who affirmed that her experience of feeling victimised by the other Crown shouldn't have happened Service, who told her that the publication ban would have been easy to lift had she applied while the proceedings were still underway. She told him she'd asked three times while they were underway and was told she had to wait until proceedings were over. Jade ended up speaking with several provincial MLAs, but she was told publication bans aren't provincial issues but federal issues. So she emailed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and to this she did receive a reply that the administration of justice is the responsibility of the provincial governments. The advice was to instead email Provincial Attorney General Eby,

who she had already contacted without response. At one point, Jade decided to look into why the name of the man who abused her never showed up on the CSO website when he was first charged with sexual assault. Jade searched by his name and the file number, just as Callie Favreau had done when Ken Erickson was arrested, but nothing came up. And it should have, since the CSO displays pending charges. On the days when Jade knew her abuser would be appearing in court, she had checked the daily court lists lists and while she did find a listing consistent with all the other details on her file, his name was redacted. It was a moot point now because of the peace bond, but Jade still wanted to know why it was never searchable from the start.

She contacted the CSO team who sent her to victim services who referred her back contacted the CSO team, who sent her to victim services, who referred her back to the CSO team. She eventually spoke with the director of the court services branch, who said that they take direction from the prosecution service about what information to put in the CSO database. Kelly had already discovered that the prosecution service often orders publication bans for sexual assault offenses as a matter of course. But in this conversation, Jade discovered that this also includes preemptively redacting the name of the accused to avoid accidentally identifying the victim complainant. accidentally identifying the victim complainant. Callie had been told that this only happened when the accused could be linked to the complainant, and she couldn't figure out why Ken's identity was hidden when they'd only dated casually for six weeks. Now she knew. There was likely no effort to ascertain a link, his name was hidden preemptively, and it was supposedly all for the sole benefit of the victim complainant.

Meanwhile, Kelly was being sent around in her own circles as she tried to obtain that transcript of the oral reasons for the court judgment that removed her publication ban. judgment that removed her publication ban. She emailed the Victoria Provincial Registry, the criminal registry clerk, and the court services branch. She was referred to an external transcript company, but they told her they couldn't help because it's a Supreme Court of BC proceeding, and sent her back to the Victoria Provincial Registry, who told her to apply for another court order, with no further direction on how to do this. She emailed BC Attorney General Eby and four federal MPs to explain the frustration and dangers of the publication ban, and the fact that sex offenders were not searchable on the CSO website. No one was responsive at this point, there was a clear lack of responsibility and it appeared that no one took ownership of the end-to-end process.

Then, out of the blue, Callie finally received a response from the court of BC to the email she'd sent them a year earlier. They wanted further clarification about the reason she was requesting a transcript of the judge's decision. Kelly explained that her ruling set a precedent in British Columbia, as she was the first person to have a publication ban removed by herself, so she wanted to share the ruling to help other survivors who face the same hurdles, and give them hope that they can have the ban on their name removed as well. The court of BC replied to tell her that they ordered a transcript, but at first needed to go back to Justice Gall for review,

and then he would need to make a determination on who can access it. That was in June of 2022. Three months after that, Jade had made progress with her application. She had a much better experience with the Crown involved in her publication ban hearing. She felt heard and wasn't made to feel like it was an adversarial relationship, and she was scheduled to appear before a second judge to request the publication ban be removed. Hopefully this judge would be the correct one, and she hoped to be able to cite the judgment in Kelly's case, but no one could find any trace of it, even internally. She gave Kelly's exact case number to the Crown,

but nothing came up. Kelly had been checking in frequently with the Court of BC to see if Justice Gall had made a decision about access, but the process was slow and she hadn't received an update. Jade was shocked when she learned that the defense was permitted to make submissions in court about her publication ban. So at the hearing to have Jade's publication ban on her identity removed after it was ordered without her consent, the defense lawyer for the man who abused her as a 14-year-old took the opportunity to subject her to old-school rape myths about women being lying opportunists. The judge heard that the defense believed the only reason Jade wanted the ban removed was so she could vilify everyone via the media.

The judge did not agree and removed Jade's publication ban in August of 2022. It was a success, but that didn't negate the re-victimization she experienced during the process. In fact, Jade would say that her experience in the criminal justice system left her feeling not only re-victimized, but victimized in a completely new way. She said, quote, sex crimes are about power, and when survivors decide to come forward and report what's happened to us, it's often because we're finally feeling empowered ourselves and want to help others, but we end up completely disempowered again, this time by the criminal justice system itself. Jade knew that the intent behind publication bans under Section 486.4 of the Criminal Code is to protect the privacy and identity of the alleged sexual assault victim and encourage future reporting of sexual offences. assault victim and encourage future reporting of sexual offences. But in her experience,

from reporting her sexual abuse to having her publication ban removed, it had the complete opposite effect. Jade told me she literally can't put into words how horrible the process was. After she reported her offence, she was left with zero power, no legal position, and was essentially not a recognised participant of the criminal justice system. She doesn't think the system is equipped to help survivors at all. And worse, she was left with the uncomfortable feeling that this is actually how the system was set up to operate. In a later interview for the Goldstream News Gazette, Jade said, Jay clarified that she would instead recommend pursuing a civil case, noting that complainants at least have their own lawyer to advocate for their interests, instead of feeling like they need to sweet-talk a Crown prosecutor who was acting in the interests of the governments. In September of 2022, Kelly had an invitation to meet with the BC Attorney General's office.

She discussed publication bans, the inconsistencies with how they're applied, how some cases have bans and others don't, the issues with communication and transparency, the damage they can cause and how difficult the process is for having them removed. The meeting was a success and Kelly finally felt like her case was being heard at a provincial level, but she wanted to help more people. Kelly had connected with a group of women led by Morell Andrews, another survivor of sexual assault. When Morell was 18 years old, she was groped by her Ontario driving instructor, Zia Shah, who was in his 50s at the time. He later pleaded guilty and at his sentencing hearing, Morell gave her victim impact statement and mentioned she wanted to share it with her friends and family afterwards.

That's when she found out she couldn't because her identity was under publication ban. She later stated, They said this ban was in my best interest, but I felt trapped. After fighting to have it removed, Morrell continued her advocacy work, just as Kelly had done, determined to make changes to policy and law at a federal level. On October 6, 2022, Morrell was invited to Ottawa to present before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It was a big deal because the committee had undertaken a review of the federal government's obligations to victims of crime, which included a review of the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights. Morrell Andrews consulted with Kelly Favreau, Jay Nielsen, legal experts and several other

advocates in putting together the presentation documentation. The argument was that publication bans are essential and should be available to complainants who want their protection, but they need to be properly consulted and informed first. The group would ultimately go on to create My Voice, My Choice, an organisation and website that brings awareness to the cause. You can find it at myvoicemychoice.org. Morrell gave the presentation and Kelly traveled to Ottawa to support her, along with Brandy Mullen, another survivor from Ontario

who had also been through the journey to have her publication ban removed. Kelly would report that during Morrell's presentation, she felt on the edge of her seat the whole time, but afterwards they all felt the trip was a great success. Finally, they felt heard at a federal level. The next month, November of 2022, Callie launched Petition E4192 with the support of Victoria MP Laurel Collins, herself a survivor of sexual violence. The petition calls on the federal government

to implement several changes around publication bans, including asking that complainants be allowed to identify themselves as the complainant and speak to their lived experience without being charged or fined. As the petition started getting signatures, there were two important developments in December of 2022. Kelly finally heard back from the BC courts about her request for the transcript. It had taken five months, but Justice Gall had permitted the oral reasons for judgment to be published on the Supreme Court website, and Kelly was sent a link to the file. website, and Kelly was sent a link to the file. Finally, the court document that showed her publication ban had been removed was on the public record. For Kelly, it was a massive milestone, but her fight had shifted. It was no longer just about her case or someone else's.

She wanted the law to change. The second important development was that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled their report before the House of Commons, and it was damning. It found that the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights, which was established in 2015, was poorly implemented and doesn't properly support victims and survivors of crime. The report made 13 recommendations about how to better support victims of crime via amendments to the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights. Two of the committee's recommendations were a direct result of the presentation given by Morell Andrews, including a recommendation that the criminal code be amended to require that victims be informed before a publication ban is imposed, and that they must be given the opportunity to opt out at any time in the process. The other recommendation called for training for Crown prosecutors across Canada on the needs of victims and the impact of publication bans.

The Toronto Star picked up on the story with an article titled, House Committee Says Victims Should Be Able To Opt Out Of Publication Bans. Kelly would report bursting into tears when she read that headline. She never thought she would see the day. In an interview with CBC, Morell Andrews said she felt humbled and elated by the committee's recommendations to fix the gap in the criminal code. Quote, What matters most is that victim complainants are provided with a choice in the matter of whether or not a publication ban is placed on your identity. Not everyone wants to be anonymous.

But just like inquiry reports, recommendations are just recommendations. The test will be to see if the government does anything about it. test will be to see if the government does anything about it. At the time, David Fraser reported for the Canadian press that Federal Justice Minister David Lamedi said he was open to updating the Victims' Bill of Rights, and the government is scheduled to give a formal response to the recommendations on May 1 of this year, 2023. And there is a very easy way that you can help. The federal government will be taking into consideration the number of signatures received on Kelly's petition. And the more signatures it gets,

the more attention it will receive and the more pressure the government will feel to implement the recommendations from the committee. There is power in numbers, but there isn't a lot of time because the petition closes first thing Friday morning, March the 10th. So to make sure that your signature is counted, why not pause this episode right now and go to the show notes, where you'll see a link to sign the petition. If you believe that survivors of sexual assault should have to consent before a publication ban is ordered on their identities, please sign.

If you believe that survivors deserve to be better and more responsibly informed about how publication bans are applied and a simplified process to have them removed, please sign. There's also a link on our website, canadiantruecrime.ca. There are just over 2,000 signatures on the petition at the time of recording and we hope that with your help, there'll be many more before the petition closes first thing in the morning this Friday, March the 10th. We appreciate your support. Thanks for listening and special thanks to Kelly Favreau, Jade Nielsen and Samantha Geiger.

We'll be updating you in a few months about the outcome of the petition and the government's response. For the full list of resources we relied on to write this episode and anything else you want to know about the podcast, including how to access ad-free episodes, visit canadiantruecrime.ca. Audio editing and production was by We Talk of Dreams, who also composed the theme songs. Production assistance was by Jesse Hawke, with script consulting by Carol Weinberg. Writing, narration, sound design and research was by me,

and the disclaimer was voiced by Eric Crosby. I'll be back soon with another Canadian true crime story. See you then. you