When the Highest Court Says “We See You”
What the Sheppard Decision Means for Survivors
Supreme court of Canada in summer. Image by Dig deeper. CC by 4.0
ATTENTION: This post may be triggering for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Please proceed gently and make sure you have support in place.
We woke up this week to a piece of legal news that landed like a small beam of light in a dim room. The Supreme Court of Canada released its reasons in R. v. Sheppard, on restoring a six-year prison sentence this past spring for a former Alberta boys’ school headmaster who sexually abused a Grade 7 student in the early 1990s. In plain language: the trial judge’s sentence stands, and appeal courts shouldn’t casually cut it down unless there’s a real, provable error.
The Supreme Court’s new reasons stick with what it said in R. v. Friesen (2020), a landmark case about sentencing for crimes against children. In Friesen, the Court said sentences for child sexual abuse should generally be higher because we now better understand how serious and long-lasting the harm is, and because Parliament has repeatedly raised penalties in the Criminal Code.
The Court also talked about parity (similar crimes, similar times) and the bigger rule of proportionality (gravity of the offence and the offender’s responsibility). Put simply: sentences should be tougher to reflect today’s understanding, and they should be consistent and fair across cases. (Wikipedia for more)
It’s helping to break apart some of the disgusting ‘myths and tropes’ (my words) that have been presented in court as defenses and in some sentencing determinations, and places more accountability on the perpetrator for the crimes.
If you’ve been following my writing here, you know I don’t treat court outcomes as magic cures. I didn’t get “fixed” by charges, a conviction, or a sentence in my own case; healing is a long, non-linear road. But sometimes a decision changes the ground under our feet in a way that actually helps. This is one of those times.
What the Supreme Court said (and why it matters)
Sentencing judges get deference. The Court reaffirmed that a fit sentence – especially one carefully reasoned – shouldn’t be tinkered with on appeal unless there’s a clear legal error or the sentence is obviously unfit. That stability matters to survivors who’ve already carried the weight of testifying, waiting, and re-living the trauma for one round.
Historic abuse is sentenced with today’s understanding of harm. This is huge. The Court confirmed that modern sentencing principles – for example, the emphasis from Friesen on the gravity of sexual offences against children – apply to historical crimes (within the legal maximums that existed back then). Translation: “It was a different time” is not a discount.
Denunciation and deterrence are front and centre. Another victory. The reasons underline that real custody is often necessary to reflect society’s condemnation and to deter others. For those of us who grew up feeling invisible or minimized, that clarity is no small thing.
Independent coverage echoed the same bottom line: the six-year term is back, contemporary principles govern, and appeal courts should be cautious about interfering. (Global News)
Why this is good for adult male survivors
1) Validation that isn’t time-limited. Many men come forward decades after the abuse. Shame, confusion, fear of not being believed – these don’t respect calendars. The Court’s message is that the passage of time doesn’t shrink the harm or the accountability. That helps dismantle the old chorus of downplaying and “boys will be boys.”
2) Less fear of “sentence erosion.” A hard-won sentence being cut down on appeal can feel like the floor giving way beneath you. By tightening when – and how – appeal courts can interfere, the decision reduces that dread. Survivors can stay the course knowing the rules are clearer.
3) A louder societal “No.” Denunciation matters. Not because prison time heals us, but because saying a strong no – formally, publicly, and proportionately – helps reset the story we tell boys – and the men they become – about their worth.
4) Clarity for the system = fewer mixed messages for us. When courts have a consistent framework, fewer surprises trickle down to survivors. Predictability lowers the emotional cost of deciding whether to report, and how to prepare if you do.
What this doesn’t do (and what we still must do)
No court can hand back lost years, steady a nervous system on command, or rebuild trust on our behalf. I learned that the hard way after my own trial: the external “finish line” and the internal work are not the same thing. The sentence in Sheppard won’t fix anyone overnight – but it does make it a little safer to believe that if you speak, you’ll be taken seriously. And that belief is often the first breath you get above the waterline. (If you’re new here, I’ve written about the trial process, publication bans, and the messy aftermath earlier.)
If you’re an adult male survivor reading this, a few gentle next steps:
Check in with your body. Notice what this news stirs up – tension, anger, relief – and ground yourself before you decide to do anything with it. (Breath work, a short walk, or phoning a friend all help and all count.)
Information is power, not pressure. Learning the landscape of how sentencing works now and where appeals fit can reduce fear even if you never report. Start with the Supreme Court’s plain-language summary.
Build a support triangle. One peer or friend. One clinician, preferably trauma-informed and male-survivor-literate. One practical resource hub such as Menandhealing.ca and Malesurvivor.org (American) which have helpful entry points.
My takeaway
Applause. The Supreme Court can’t heal us, but it can stop the fucking gaslighting in court. By restoring a fit sentence and insisting that historical child-sexual-abuse cases be judged with today’s eyes, the Court has said out loud what many of us have known in our bones: what happened was profoundly wrong, and time doesn’t make it smaller. That doesn’t end the work – but it does make the road back a little more solid beneath our feet.
Resources & further reading
Supreme Court of Canada – Case in Brief (R. v. Sheppard): clear, plain-language summary of the ruling and what it changes. (Supreme Court of Canada)
Full decision: for those who want the details. (SCC Decisions)
News analysis: additional context on applying contemporary principles to historical abuse. (Canadian Lawyer)
If this stirred anything up, please pause here and take care of yourself. Reach out. You’re not alone on this road.
To help us celebrate a bit, and lighten the mood enjoy a little bit of the incomparable Irish Mythen and their peppy little ditty.