You’d think that judges would not have to be reminded by the Supreme Court of Canada of the existence of a law that’s been around since 1982.

But when it’s the so-called “rape shield” law, which is meant to prevent an alleged victim’s prior sexual history from being presented in court unless it’s relevant to the case at hand, they frequently do.

Indeed, in the past two months alone the Supreme Court sent two cases back for re-trial after judges allowed evidence to be presented in violation of that law.

Sadly, these two cases only add to a litany of outrageous examples that indicate many judges and trial lawyers alike need better training in the laws dealing with sexual assault.

In the first case, the court ruled that Bradley Barton must face a new trial in the death of Cindy Gladue because a trial judge had allowed the defence to refer to her repeatedly as a prostitute rather than by her name.

And last week the Supreme Court ruled that Patrick John Goldfinch must face a new trial for sexual assault after a trial judge admitted evidence that he had a “friends with benefits” relationship with the alleged assault victim.

As Justice Andromache Karakatsanis wrote for the majority, that evidence served no purpose other than to imply that because she had consented to sex in the past she was more likely to have consented on the night in question.

“No means no, and only yes means yes: even in the context of an established relationship, even part way through a sexual encounter, and even if the act is one the complainant has routinely consented to in the past,” she reminded judges across the country.

It’s high time they listened, and learned.