Les Courageuses Prevail: Rethinking Our Practices in Light of Trauma Science

The date of March 31, 2026 marked an important moment for Quebec civil law. In two detailed Superior Court judgments ^[1], Justice Chantal Tremblay ordered Gilbert Rozon to compensate eight women for bodily injuries resulting from sexual violence committed between 1980 and 2004 and confirmed the constitutionality of recent reforms to the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) aimed at better protecting victims.

Rozon challenged both the removal of limitation periods for civil actions stemming from sexual violence (art. 2926.1 C.C.Q.) and the prohibition on using myths and stereotypes regarding behaviours or circumstances surrounding the events in matters of evidence (art. 2858.1 C.C.Q.), arguing that these changes infringed his right to a full and complete defence. The Court rejected these arguments and upheld both provisions and an essential adaptation of the justice system to the realities of sexual violence, marking a major victory for Les Courageuses – a group of women survivors who fought Rozon until the end.

JUSTIFICATION UNDER THE OAKES TEST

To confirm the constitutional validity of the C.C.Q. provisions, the Court applied criteria from the well-known Oakes decision^[2], concluding that limits imposed on the defendant’s rights are fully justified in a free and democratic society.

According to Justice Tremblay, the removal of limitation periods serves a crucial purpose: improving access to justice by relieving victims of the burden of proving why they could not act sooner, a requirement that once hindered both justice and healing. The evidentiary framework, on the other hand, aims to protect victims’ dignity, privacy, and equality by preventing the use of intrusive evidence or discriminatory prejudice. The Court emphasized that these measures respond to the insidious nature of sexual violence, which can delay awareness or disclosure for decades. In such a context, excluding myths and stereotypes from evidence is viewed as rational, as such evidence may distort the search for truth.

Ultimately, under the constitutional test, social benefits of these reforms far outweigh the disadvantages for alleged aggressors, as they allow victims to break the silence and correct a historical injustice.

RECOGNIZING THE SPECIFICITY OF TRAUMA

A central aspect of the judgment is the Court’s careful use of science to inform its legal reasoning, thanks to the expert testimony of Professor Karine Baril (University of Québec in Outaouais). Drawing on scientific literature, her analysis allowed the Court to dismantle the myth of the “ideal victim” and replace it with an evidence‑based understanding of typical biological and psychological reactions following an assault, including:

1. Tonic Immobility

Contrary to the myth that a victim must fight back to prove non‑consent, the expert evidence shows that when faced with a threat, higher cognitive functions are overridden in favour of reflexive survival behaviours. Tonic immobility—a form of physical and mental paralysis—is the most common reaction (experienced by 48% to 68% of sexual‑violence victims in studies conducted between 1993 and 2017). This absence of physical or verbal resistance can no longer be interpreted as passive consent but must be understood as an involuntary catatonic response to trauma.

2. Dissociation and Memory Gaps

The Court recognized that trauma can “short‑circuit” memory. Under intense stress, memory may become fragmented, or a victim may experience dissociative amnesia. A victim may recall peripheral details with precision (such as an oriental birdcage overhead, in the case of Annick Charette) while having “blackouts” regarding central facts. They may also feel “outside their body,” a common defence mechanism. These phenomena explain why some plaintiffs were unable to recount the assault in perfect chronological order—an imperfection that should not undermine their credibility.

3. Post‑Assault Behaviours

The expert confirmed that there is no universal post‑assault behaviour. Remaining in contact with the aggressor, continuing to work for him, or even showing apparent tenderness (such as the “back caress” mentioned by Danie Frenette) are documented as survival or denial strategies. These reactions aim to minimize the horror, to “not feel like a victim,” and to maintain a façade of normalcy.

4. The “Non‑Recognition” of Sexual Assault

Finally, the expert revealed a striking statistic: on average, 60% of victims do not initially label their experience as sexual assault, describing it instead as “bad sex” or a “misunderstanding” due to shame or internalized myths. This phenomenon of delayed realization—sometimes decades later—scientifically justifies the need for time limitation-free civil remedies.

ADAPTABILITY OF THE COURT IN THE ASSESSMENT CREDIBILITY

A key pillar of this victory lies in Justice Tremblay’s adaptability in fairly assessing decades‑old facts. She rigorously distinguished the sincerity of a witness (credibility) from the accuracy of the reported facts (reliability). The Court acknowledged that the passage of decades inevitably erodes memory, making it normal, even expected, that a victim cannot recall exact words or details. By accepting that chronological imprecision does not invalidate the core of a sincere account, the Court ensured that victims are no longer disqualified simply because of gaps in peripheral memories.

TAKEAWAYS FOR WORKPLACE INVESTIGATORS AND EMPLOYERS

Although these decisions were rendered in civil matters and not before labour tribunals, they directly impact the conduct of psychological and sexual harassment investigations by confirming that fact‑finding cannot rely on unrealistic normative expectations about complainants’ behaviour.

For independent investigation firms, this is a reminder that neutrality and impartiality require adapting interview methods, credibility assessment criteria, and expectations regarding narrative coherence to avoid reproducing the very discriminatory mechanisms that the law seeks to correct.The decisions thus establish a new standard of diligence: a rigorous investigation is one informed by trauma science.

For employers, Justice Tremblay’s decisions underscore that prevention can no longer be limited to general training: it must explicitly dismantle myths and stereotypes related to sexual violence and integrate knowledge about trauma responses. This also requires adapting internal policies to avoid normalizing problematic behaviours. As Professor Karine Baril’s expertise reminds us, “rape culture” rests on social tolerance that enables sexual violence. Workplaces must therefore ensure that their practices do not reproduce these biases.

In terms of intervention, employers are obligated to take every complaint or report seriously, even late ones, and to act, for example by conducting an investigation. A disclosure made years after the events can no longer be interpreted as a sign of inconsistency or bad faith. Likewise, post‑assault behaviours such as maintaining contact, polite gestures, or the absence of an immediate break cannot be used solely to discredit a complainant’s credibility, since they are now recognized in civil law as myths and stereotypes inadmissible in evidence ^[3].

In short, these judgments go far beyond financial compensation. They offer official validation of the survivors’ accounts, transforming their status from victims to agents of justice. They also remind us that in matters of harassment and sexual violence, neither time, nor appearances, nor outdated normative expectations can serve as filters for fact‑finding. For employers and investigators alike, they impose the same requirement: adapt practices to human realities without sacrificing rigour, fairness, or impartiality.

 

[1] Tulasne c. Rozon, 2026 QCCS 1075 (Judgment on the merits) Tulasne c. Rozon, 2026 QCCS 1076 (Constitutional judgment)

^[2] R v. Oakes, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 103 (1986 CanLII 46 (CSC))

^[3] It should be noted, however, that article 2858.1 C.C.Q. does not absolutely exclude all evidence relating to behaviours or circumstances surrounding the events. Rather, it creates a presumption of inadmissibility when such evidence is invoked to support reasoning based on myths and stereotypes. This presumption may be rebutted if the party seeking to introduce the evidence demonstrates that it is relevant for a legitimate purpose, independent of such reasoning.