Causation, Common Sense, and the Common Law: Replacing Unexamined Assumptions with What We Know about Male Violence against Women or from Jane Doe to Bonnie Mooney

• Published in: Canadian journal of women and the law 2005, Vol.17 (1), p.87-116
• Main Author: Sheehy, Elizabeth A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Canada; Charter of Rights-Canada; Common law; Court decisions; Domestic violence; Feminism; Gender; Gender equity; Gender studies; Law; Police; Violence; Women
• ISSN: 0832-8781; 1911-0235; 1911-0235
• DOI: 10.1353/jwl.2006.0018

In this article, Elizabeth Sheehy argues that Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto Police, wherein the police were held accountable in law for sex discrimination in violation of women's section 15 equality rights under the Charter and for negligence in their investigation of a serial rapist, represents a high point in feminist litigation. She details the feminist knowledge, language, and strategy as well as the individual contributions by Jane Doe herself, her lawyers, her experts, her judges, and even a police officer that together made this groundbreaking legal victory possible. She compares this case to Mooney v. Canada, a case also involving sexism in the policing of male violence against women, where Bonnie Mooney's negligence case was lost on the legal stumbling block of proof of causation. Elizabeth Sheehy suggests that although feminists became involved in this case on appeal and argued that Bonnie Mooney's section 15 rights were infringed, proof of the element of causation could have been facilitated had women's equality been at issue at the trial level. She shows how a feminist analysis of wife battering and femicide could have been used to challenge the assumptions of both police and judges that in turn shaped the ruling on causation and argues that even when lawyers fail to raise section 15 arguments, judges bear a responsibility to interpret the law consistent with the equality guarantee. Dans le présent article, Elizabeth Sheehy soutient que l'arrêt Jane Doe c. Metropolitan Toronto Police marque un point tournant dans la présentation réussie d'arguments féministes devant les tribunaux. Cet arrêt a tenu la police responsable pour son comportement discriminatoire, en contravention des droits à l'égalité des femmes prévus à l'article 15 de la Charte et responsable de négligence dans leur enquête sur un violeur en série. L'auteure identifie les connaissances, la langue et la stratégie féministes aussi bien que les contributions personnelles de Jane Doe elle-même, de ses avocates, de ses spécialistes, de ses juges, et même d'un agent de police qui, ensemble, ont rendu possible cette victoire juridique quasi-révolutionnaire. Elle compare cette décision à l'affaire Mooney c. Canada, un arrêt qui traite également du sexisme dans le contrôle policier de la violence masculine contre les femmes. Dans cette affaire, la difficulté de prouver le lien de causalité a provoqué l'échec de la poursuite pour négligence policière, intentée par Bonnie Mooney. Selon El