A judge at a preliminary hearing has the authority to order a complainant in a sexual assault case to remove her veil while testifying if he or she believes it's not being worn for religious reasons, a just-released court ruling says.

Last fall, Ontario Court Justice Norris Weisman ordered a Muslim woman to testify with her face bared after finding her "religious belief is not that strong . . . and that it is, as she says, a matter of comfort."

The woman asked the Superior Court to overturn the ruling.

Superior Court Justice Frank Marrocco considered the application during a hearing in March and in a 38-page written ruling released today agreed to quash Weisman's decision.

However, Marrocco refused to grant the woman's order permitting her to wear her niqab while testifying once the preliminary hearing resumes.

Instead, Marrocco says Weisman will have to conduct another hearing about the issue since he didn't explore it far enough before making his decision.

"The failure to explore the limits and exceptions of the applicant's professed religious belief may have resulted in the preliminary inquiry judge mischaracterizing the applicant's evidence as an assertion that wearing the veil was a matter of comfort," Marrocco wrote.

However, Marrocco says Weisman, as the preliminary judge, is within his jurisdiction to rule on the matter once a more thorough hearing is held.

"At risk of stating the obvious, if the preliminary inquiry judge is not satisfied by the applicant that she is wearing a veil for a religious or other valid reason, he has the authority ...to order her to remove it, provided he is satisfied that he must make such an order to regulate the preliminary inquiry in a way consistent with the Criminal Code."

Lawyer David Butt, who represented the woman at the preliminary hearing and also argued the issue in front of Marrocco, said his client needs time to review and consider the "complicated" ruling.

"It appears to be saying on the one hand, that the preliminary inquiry judge inappropriately weighed in on Charter issues at a preliminary inquiry. On the other hand, it also appears to be saying that if the judge went a different route he or she could do precisely that at the preliminary inquiry anyway," Butt said today.

"In that sense, there does appear to be two different directions coming out of the judgement and that's something obviously my client will have to look very carefully at in terms of considering how to go forward from here."

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The preliminary hearing is set to resume Aug. 19. Butt said his client now has two choices: whether to return to court that day "and in which case this judgement would govern what would unfold from there." She also has the option of appealing Marrocco's decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

"Because the judgement is in a new area and it's a very complicated set of reasons that's going to require some thought and careful attention."