Cheryl VanHuizen’s last text to her son promised she would call him tomorrow. Less than two hours later, she was dead.

Her neck cartilage was fractured in three places. Her face and body bore bruises and abrasions. She had multiple anal injuries, including a rectal tear the forensic pathologist determined occurred after death.

The Crown alleged her common-law spouse, Shawn Trowbridge, sexually assaulted VanHuizen and strangled her during an argument. The argument was that her extreme injuries, as well as other evidence, showed that Trowbridge intended to kill her.

Trowbridge said she had asked him to strangle her during sex and that her death was the accidental outcome of consensual sexual choking. VanHuizen could not give her account. The jury acquitted him of murder, showing the power of the “rough sex” narrative in creating reasonable doubt, even on facts such as these.

A new trial exposes a legal gap

On Sept. 25, the Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside Trowbridge’s acquittal and ordered a new trial on a charge of manslaughter. That decision provides another opportunity for accountability. But the court’s revised test for invalidating alleged “consent” leaves a gap in protection against strangulation, a dangerous and growing form of sexual violence that disproportionately impacts women.

Trowbridge’s own account revealed his knowledge of sexual strangulation’s danger. He acknowledged deliberately interfering with blood flow and........

© IRPP - Policy Options