Advocates are applauding the “exceptional” accommodations provided to a domestic violence victim testifying in a recent B.C. family law case, saying they should be more widely available to survivors facing their abusers in court.
Earlier this year, Amanda Kroetsch was permitted to testify behind a screen during her divorce trial so she wouldn’t have to face Nima Rahmany, the ex who previously pleaded guilty to assaulting her.
After the first day, when Kroetsch’s lawyer said it was still too distressing for her to testify with Rahmany in the courtroom, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Neena Sharma arranged for him to watch the testimony by video from another room in the building.
Sharma described the accommodations as “exceptional” and “highly unusual” as she granted them.
“It is important that litigants feel that they can put their case forward, and she’s telling me that she’s having grave difficulties doing that, so then we need to find a way to address that. It has no impact on my findings at all,” Sharma said during a Feb. 7 hearing.
Representatives of organizations that support domestic violence survivors say they’re unaware of similar accommodations ever being granted in a B.C. court to a party in a family dispute, and they hope someday these measures aren’t seen as exceptional.
“I’ve never heard of it,” said Kim Hawkins, executive director of Rise Women’s Legal Centre.
“I think that makes all the sense in the world, if it can be accommodated. I think there’s been a real failure to understand how stressful it is for people to sit in the same room as someone who has been violent or abusive or coercively controlling.”
Hawkins said the details will likely end up in Rise’s training for lawyers so they know what they can request.
Angela Marie MacDougall, executive director of Battered Women’s Support Services (BWSS), described the arrangements made for Kroetsch’s testimony as a “first” in B.C.’s family court system.
“We think it’s a necessary option,” MacDougall said.
She added that a BWSS support worker who was in the court with Kroetsch raised the idea of a screen, an option that is sometimes available in criminal cases.
“We absolutely want to ensure that vulnerable parties and witnesses receive the same protection that they would receive if they are in criminal court,” she said.
A ‘healing’ court process, despite loss
Proceedings in the trial concluded earlier this month. In August, Sharma ruled against Kroetsch, finding that she was not in a marriage-like relationship with Rahmany and therefore was not entitled to spousal support or division of property.
Then, in a judgment on Dec. 11, Sharma found that Kroetsch was obliged to pay Rahmany’s legal costs.
Kroetsch said she’s still proud she was able to fight and win the accommodations necessary to feel comfortable on the stand.
“No, I didn’t get the outcome I wanted, but I got the process I wanted,” she said.
“Being heard and being respected and being accommodated … did something really good for my healing. I moved forward in that trial feeling that at least the judge is going to hear me, she’s going to believe me and she’s gonna stand up for fairness.”
Rahmany, a former chiropractor turned relationship coach, pleaded guilty last year to assaulting Kroetsch in 2017 and 2018. Assault and assault causing bodily harm charges were stayed in connection with another three incidents, and he received a one-year conditional discharge.
In a victim impact statement submitted for his sentencing, Kroetsch described the lasting effects of the attacks, including complex post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts and insomnia.
When the family trial began on Feb. 6, Kroetsch said she was terrified by the prospect of facing Rahmany in court.
“I remember walking into the courthouse doors for the first time and just feeling a feeling that I hadn’t felt since I was with him, of looking over my shoulder constantly,” she said.
Rahmany’s lawyer did not object to Kroetsch’s request for a screen.
Sharma said she’d never had a request like this before, but agreed to allow it, cautioning, “I don’t think you should assume I’d allow it for anybody else, necessarily.”
‘It’s OK to question’
When proceedings resumed on Feb. 7, Kroetsch’s lawyer, Maritza Verdun-Jones, advised the court that her client had experienced severe back pain after the first day of testimony, and suspected it was a physical symptom of her PTSD being triggered.
She asked if Kroetsch could testify from another room via Microsoft Teams, or if a sheriff could be brought into the courtroom.
Sharma pointed out that moving Kroetsch out of the courtroom would make it difficult for her to review documents during her testimony. It would also make it hard for Rahmany’s lawyer to assess her credibility.
In the end, Rahmany agreed to leave the courtroom.
Verdun-Jones, an experienced family lawyer, told CBC that she has never seen this type of arrangement permitted in a family law context.
Kroetsch said it made all the difference to know that she wouldn’t bump into him on her way in or out of the courtroom.
She said she almost gave up on the trial after the first day of testimony because she was in so much pain, but she’s grateful she persisted. She wants other survivors to feel comfortable doing the same.
“It’s OK to question, it’s OK to give directions, it’s OK to make requests, it’s OK to correct things, and that is really f–king hard when you’re a survivor and you’re used to getting hit when you do that,” she said.
