Article content continued

“This was not a case of mere judicial error,” reads the complaint. At many points, Camp’s biases constituted an open defiance of Canadian law, they say.

Section 276 of the Criminal Code explicitly forbids a court from hearing evidence of a victim’s prior sexual history in order to determine whether they are “more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.”

‘Sex and pain sometimes go together, that — that’s not necessarily a bad thing’

Nevertheless, at trial Camp allowed the defence attorney to question the victim about whether she had been flirting with attendees at the Calgary house party before the alleged assault occurred — and whether “she was physically able to deal with” a possible rapist.

“The law doesn’t stop people thinking,” Camp told Crown prosecutor Hyatt Mograbee when she raised one of many objections during the trial.

At another point, he refers to Section 276 as “very, very incursive legislation.”

According to transcripts, Camp also said that since the complainant was drunk, there was an “onus on her to be more careful.” He referred to the alleged rape as a “misbehav[iour]” on the part of the accused.

If the homeless 19-year-old victim had truly been frightened of her 240-lb. alleged rapist as events unfolded in a bathroom on December, 2011, Camp said, wouldn’t she have screamed?

Perhaps the accused had been a little rough, but “sex is very often a challenge,” the judge told prosecutors.

And when the victim said the experience had been physically painful, Camp countered that a bit of vaginal pain was perfectly natural.