SUDBURY Two women in Sudbury want you to know their names: Courtney Gaudreau and Julie Lamothe.
Both women have accused someone of sexual assault, and during the court process, their names were shielded from public view. It’s a way to protect those who are accusing another in a court of law.
But both women told Sudbury.com the ban was preventing them from healing.
They felt a ban put in place for their protection shouldn’t prevent them from telling their story, and though it would expose them, both felt it was necessary to ask the court to have the publication ban covering their names lifted.
Covered under Section 486.5-1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, publication bans are used in court to protect the identity of a victim or witness from public knowledge, and prevents the media from publishing identifying information. It’s often use to shield witnesses who are afraid to testify or vulnerable witnesses, such as children, but also, it is used to encourage victims to report offences that are usually under-reported, like sexual assault.
However, the ban can limit what victims can discuss about their own case, and they are unable to identify themselves in any way, especially to the media. But thanks to Bill S-12, the Crown can request a publication ban – even a retroactive one – be rescinded at the request of a victim without the need for a hearing.
It also does not allow the accused to argue against the application.
In Gaudreau’s case, the publication ban was also extended to cover the man she accused, a somewhat rare occurrence.
A plea deal was struck on Jan. 21, 2022, and the man she accused pleaded guilty to assault; the sexual assault charges were dropped. He was sentenced to 12 months probation, which he has now served.
But once Gaudreau had her ban lifted, his was too. The man’s name is Kevan Mark Moxam
Gaudreau said the incident with Moxam occurred on July 25, 2020. She is now able to speak about the events as her publication ban was retroactively lifted Dec. 27, 2023.
Before that, she said she was advised against even saying Moxam’s name in her counselling sessions to avoid violating the ban.
Gaudreau also said she was frustrated that a plea deal was struck.
The court heard in an agreed statement of facts from assistant Crown attorney Jen Ricard that Gaudreau and her husband were at the Fairbank Lake Resort when they met a Moxam.
In her victim impact statement, written for but never read to the court, Gaudreau alleges that Moxam touched her non-consensually five times; the last time, he spoke to her as he pulled her close, saying “I want your p—y so bad.”
She told Sudbury.com she had rebuffed him four times already that evening, twice when he grabbed her forearm as she passed him, again when he grabbed her buttocks without consent, and again when he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitals.
She said each time she was frozen in fear, and it has had a long-term effect on her relationships, her health and her happiness. She told Sudbury.com she wanted to make sure her daughter never had to deal with something like this.
But she soon found she didn't have much say in what happened in the courts, especially as Moxam took a plea deal, which prevented her from having her day in court.
Though she wanted to protect herself and her identity, she said she needed to speak out about what happened, and didn’t want to be prevented from doing so.
Gaudreau is one of the first people in Canada to have her publication ban lifted, and she is raising awareness for others who may find themselves limited.
For her part, Julie Lamothe reported a sexual assault to police in 2021, but at the time had yet to decide whether she wanted to file charges against the man she was accusing: Adam Castonguay.
After trial, Castonguay was found not guilty of sexual assault, sexual assault-choking, and assault causing bodily harm.
Lamothe alleged that Castonguay sexually and physically abused her at a Christmas party in December 2020. She testified he assaulted her, choked her, and threw her so hard against a couch she lost consciousness and suffered a concussion. Castonguay denied the accusations and testified that while he shared a consensual kiss or two and made out with Lamothe, he did not sexually assault her.
Upon acquitting Castonguay of the charges, Justice Lori Thomas said she based her decision on the question of reasonable doubt.
“It may mean sometimes a guilty person is acquitted, but it is a necessary consequence to ensure that an innocent person is not convicted.
“This was not a credibility contest,” she said. “But I cannot disregard the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence.”
Lamothe has also filed a $13-million civil suit against Castonguay in Sault Ste. Marie court. At trial, Justice Thomas said this could be seen as “motive to fabricate,” but she did not find that to be the case.
Lamothe said she felt pressure to move forward after she was diagnosed with a concussion, which required her to take a leave from work. This meant an internal investigation began at her workplace, where she alleged the assault took place.
“I had spoken to the police, but when it all happened, it was all very shocking,” she said, noting she told herself she would just focus on her work and “get through to February (2021) and then find a new job.”
The publication ban required the media to omit that Castonguay was Lamothe’s employer, and she said she feels leaving that information out changed how she was perceived.
“I got asked questions all the time about it: well, why did you stay? Well, he was my boss. So it changes the dynamic completely when people find out that I was a student, just waiting to get my law license, and he held that in his hands — he could have fired me the next day, and I wouldn't have been able to get my law license.”
Now a lawyer with her own practice, Lamothe said it was also difficult to be a part of the law community, a group of people who knew who she and Castonguay were.
“I'm surrounded by people and everyone knows who and what's happened, but I can't say anything, because I can't identify myself.”
And with delays pushing the trial from the 2021 accusation to the 2024 trial, the delays took their toll on her. She said she stopped going to social events during that time, especially those within the legal community.
“I never knew who was going to be there at the time and I found that to be difficult,” said Lamothe. “It was incredibly isolating.”
Now, despite the turmoil they have experienced within the justice system, both women want to raise awareness of the opportunity for victims to have the publication bans lifted, should they wish.
While it is not a decision to be taken lightly, and once the ban is lifted it cannot be put in place — you can’t unring a bell, as they say — it is a decision that is the victim’s alone.
“It is the complainant's right: it's their identity, so if someone wants (the ban) lifted, it's not the Crown's choice whether or not to do it, they have to do it,” said Lamothe. “It is the victim's decision, at the end of the day, and if the Crown doesn't do it, you can make an application at the criminal registers office to have it lifted.”
