Naming your attacker would be “unfair”…?
Susan Gilbreath survived a violent sexual assault.
She did everything the justice system asked of her. She underwent a sexual assault examination, cooperated with police and prepared to testify at trial. She trusted that the system would protect her.
Instead, as reported by Jacques Gallant for the Toronto Star, she found herself fighting for her safety, her dignity and even her right to speak publicly about what happened to her.
At sentencing, Susan asked to have the publication ban protecting her identity lifted.
Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts* expressed concern that lifting the ban would be “unfair” to the man who attacked her. Because he was her former boyfriend, removing her publication ban would also allow him to be publicly identified.
Unfair to him?
This should never have been up for debate.
In 2023, Parliament passed Bill S-12, strengthening survivors' autonomy over publication bans protecting their identities.
Beyond The Verdict co-founder Kelly Favro was directly involved advocating for these reforms which established a clear legal process: unless another protected person's privacy is at risk, a survivor's request to lift their ban must be granted. The accused is no longer even permitted to make submissions opposing that request.
Yet Susan had to sit through a courtroom discussion about whether exercising her legal right would be fair to the man who sexually assaulted her.
After taking a recess to review the relevant law, Justice Roberts lifted the publication ban, allowing Susan to be publicly identified along with the offender, Frederick Moore.
But by then, the damage was already done.
Why wasn’t the relevant law established before the court publicy called Susan's rights into question?
Surely it is the responsibility of the court to understand and uphold those rights - not the survivor.
The publication ban was just one example of the disproportionate consideration the court appeared to afford Moore. The imbalance becomes even more apparent in Justice Roberts’ written sentencing decision.
In the section addressing victim impact, the court devoted just two paragraphs to describing the devastating consequences of the assault for Susan, her family, her career and her sense of safety.
The next 19 paragraphs were dedicated to offender Frederick Moore's personal circumstances, including his history, sobriety, weight loss, church attendance, involvement with Alcoholics Anonymous and renewed family relationships.
The decision also details lengthy, glowing testimonials from Moore's supporters, portraying him sympathetically as a transformed, respected and generous man.
The sheer volume of praise given to Moore creates the impression of a court thoroughly convinced by a sex offender’s story of redemption — at the expense of the woman whose life he devastated.
The damage unfortunately continues.
Susan has described living in fear, keeping survival supplies in her vehicle and considering leaving the province to feel safe. Her doctor even suggested she change her name.
She also learned - only at sentencing, that the bail condition requiring Moore to wear a GPS monitor had been removed in 2025, without her knowledge.
And then, Moore was sentenced to three and a half years in prison, a sentence Justice Roberts herself acknowledged was “very low” given the seriousness of the offence and its impact on Susan. He was subsequently released on bail pending appeal.
To be clear: the judge was legally entitled - and required - to consider Moore's rehabilitation and other mitigating circumstances.
Beyond The Verdict questions whether the weight she afforded his rehabilitation was proportionate to the gravity of the assault and the lasting harm to Susan.
Where was that same consideration for Susan's rehabilitation, safety and future?
We cannot continue celebrating an offender's progress while treating a survivor's ongoing suffering as simply the cost of surviving.
Susan's experience begs serious questions about whether the rights Parliament has established for survivors are being consistently understood and respected in practice.
Beyond the Verdict calls for:
Mandatory judicial education on publication-ban reforms.
Enforceable victim-notification requirements when significant bail or release conditions change.
Meaningful accountability when survivors' rights are disregarded.
These protections are not optional.
They exist because survivors fought for them, and Parliament recognized their importance.
Susan should be rebuilding her life, not fighting for rights that the justice system is already legally required to respect.
Survivors should not have to fight the justice system to be protected by it.
Every survivor deserves better.
- Kelly and Jessica with support from Kristi
Beyond The Verdict
* We want to note that Justice Gillian Roberts also presided over the first trial of Hedley frontman Jacob Hoggard, where victim-complainant and Beyond The Verdict co-founder Jessica Baker reported being treated with dignity and respect.
Jessica’s experience with the same judge deserves acknowledgment — just as Susan Gilbreath's treatment deserves scrutiny.