Making systemic change through an inquest (Part two)

Over the three weeks of the recent femicide inquest held in Pembroke, Ontario, the five jurors read hundreds if not thousands of pages of exhibits and listened to the testimony of more than 30 witnesses who spoke to a broad range of issues related to the 2015 murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam. Some of those attending the inquest described it as akin to taking a graduate level course in intimate partner violence, so great was the amount of information shared.

Witnesses included family members, police officers, probation officials, survivors, academics, frontline workers, those who work with perpetrators, senior government officials and others. Their testimony provided information for the jury to consider about police IPV training and practices, the impact of the murders on the community, the history of IPV and system responses to it in Ontario, related government policies and procedures, frontline services for survivors, work being done with perpetrators of IPV, criminal court-related services, firearms protocols, probation, electronic monitoring of perpetrators, alternatives to the mainstream criminal system for addressing IP, the events leading up to and on the day of the murders, and more.

On the final day of the inquest, the parties and their lawyers presented 72 draft recommendations drawn from the evidence for the jury to consider. The jury then retired to deliberate, and returned early the following week with its verdict, which included 86 recommendations for change.

Making change

It was a powerful moment when the jurors, speaking in turn, read out each of those recommendations which, if implemented, would have an incredible impact on systemic responses to IPV and to its eradication. While all of them are important, there are a few that are especially visionary.

Oversight and accountability were key concerns of the jury, and three of the first recommendations speak to that concern, urging the province to:

• formally declare that intimate partner violence is an epidemic (Rec. #1), which would validate – for anyone who has survived IPV – that what has happened to them is real and wrong. Such a declaration also opens the door for political action: once you have an epidemic, there is a political responsibility to respond to it, as we saw with COVID over the past 2 ½ years. A political statement that IPV is an epidemic should make it easier for survivors to come forward, for communities to engage in conversations and, generally, for IPV to come out of the shadows;
• establish an independent Intimate Partner Violence Commission dedicated to eradicating IPV(Rec. # 2), with adequate and stable funding, to raise public awareness about IPV, ensure that governments and other institutions are accountable and transparent in addressing IPV and act as a voice for survivors and victims’ families;
• establish a provincial implementation committee to ensure that the recommendations from this inquest are comprehensively considered and responses are fully reported. This committee would be chaired by an independent IPV expert, and its membership would be equally drawn from government and the community (Rec. #5).

Not surprisingly, the jury also proposed a number of recommendations that would increase safety for IPV survivors, one of which urged the government to study the best approach to developing an interpersonal information disclosure protocol (often referred to as “Clare’s Law”), learning from the experiences of jurisdictions – including three other provinces – that have already implemented such protocols (Rec. # 46).

Mandatory charging directives in cases of IPV have been in place across Canada since the mid-1980s. While they addressed an important challenge when they were implemented, the directives have led to significant unintended negative consequences, as identified by a number of witnesses.  The jury has called for a comprehensive, independent, evidence-based review of mandatory charging, “with a view to assessing its effect on intimate IPV rates and recidivism, with particular attention to any unintended negative consequences” (Rec. #58).

These are but five of 86 thoughtful recommendations that cover other areas such as funding for frontline services, education and training, collaboration and communication, measures to address perpetrators, interventions and firearms. While the vast majority of recommendations were directed at the provincial government, other institutions including the Office of the Chief Coroner, the Chief Firearms Officer, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the federal government also received recommendations for change.

There have been domestic homicide inquest recommendations before, many of which remain unimplemented. Given this history, the final words of the verdict are especially powerful. Recommendation #86 called on the parties to the inquest “to reconvene one year following the verdict to discuss the progress in implementing these recommendations.”

The call is now in the court of all Ontarians to create the political will needed to see that the work of the five dedicated jurors in this inquest was not in vain. When they and the parties meet in June 2023, they should be able to give at least a passing grade to the government and other institutions vested with responsibility for implementing these important recommendations.

This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.