NEWS
05/24/2019 11:42 EDT | Updated 05/24/2019 12:40 EDT

Supreme Court Calls For New Trial In Death Of Cindy Gladue

The 36-year-old woman bled to death in an Edmonton motel room in 2011.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Tulips bloom outside the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on May 24, 2019. The high court ruled in favour of a new manslaughter trial for Ontario trucker Bradley Barton in the case of Cindy Gladue's death.

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada says Ontario trucker Bradley Barton should be retried for manslaughter, but not murder, in the case of Cindy Gladue, who bled to death in the bathroom of his Edmonton motel room.

In a 4-3 decision today, the high court says evidence about sexual history was mishandled at the original trial that led to Barton’s acquittal on a charge of first-degree murder.

Barton acknowledged hiring Cindy Gladue for sex in 2011 and claimed the severe injury to her vaginal wall that caused her death was an accident that took place during rough but consensual activity.

The Crown argued that Barton intentionally wounded Gladue and was guilty of first-degree murder or, at the very least, manslaughter, because the 36-year-old Metis woman had not consented to the activity.

Barton was found not guilty by a jury that repeatedly heard references to Gladue as a “prostitute” and a “native.” The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial for first-degree murder. 

Watch: A rally was held last year in Ottawa calling for justice for Cindy Gladue. Story continues below.

 

A majority of the Supreme Court says Barton’s new trial should be restricted to the offence of manslaughter, as the procedural errors at the original trial did not taint the jury’s finding on the question of murder. The minority said he should be retried with both manslaughter and murder as possible verdicts.

“When Indigenous women are brought in as victims to many of these kinds of incidents ... they’re often perceived almost like they’re the criminal and that they have to defend themselves, and Cindy, in her death, couldn’t defend herself. So we’re grateful that there’s going to be some seeking justice for Cindy and her family,” said Melanie Omeniho, the president of Women of the Metis Nation, who was at the court for the decision.

It’s not uncommon for cases involving the deaths of Indigenous women to go through multiple appeals and retrials, she said, as difficult as that is for victims’ families.

Courts face ‘obligation’

Also there for the verdict was Qajaq Robinson, a commissioner in the national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women, which is due to report in early June.

“I think it’s a step forward that the court has recognized that in cases of sexual assaults involving Indigenous women and girls, that there’s an obligation on courts, on judges, to be gatekeepers — to ensure that bias, prejudice, racism and sexism to do not form part of the evidence, are not what juries and judges rely on to make their decisions,” she said. “This is a big step forward.” 

She agreed with Omeniho that women who encounter the criminal-justice system often feel reduced to stereotypes and that “they do not get the justice that other Canadians get from the system.”

Two experts testifying at the original trial for the Crown said the 11-centimetre cut in Gladue’s vaginal wall was caused by a sharp instrument. A defence expert said the injury was a laceration that resulted from blunt-force trauma.

Barton, who hired Gladue for two nights of sex, testified that he put his fist in her vagina on both occasions, but on the second night she started bleeding.

Barton said when he woke up the next morning he found Gladue dead in the bathtub.

In its decision, the Supreme Court says the trial judge failed to apply provisions in the law that limit the extent to which an alleged victim’s sexual history can be discussed during proceedings.

It says these provisions should have been followed before introduction of evidence about Gladue’s sexual activity with Barton on the first night.

If any of the evidence had then been deemed admissible, careful instruction by the trial judge was essential to ensure the jury understood the permissible uses of that evidence, the Supreme Court adds.