Submission to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women re: Bill C-233
Presented by Pamela Cross, Luke’s Place Legal Director, on May 10, 2022 at 3:30pm.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to talk about Bill C-233.
I do so on behalf of Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre in Durham Region, where I am the Legal Director. I’m happy to talk to you about the work we do with survivors of family violence if there is time during questions.
Judicial Education
Luke’s Place strongly supports judicial education on the issue of intimate partner violence (IPV).
The family law system in Canada is not always an understanding and safe place for women who have been subjected to IPV. Women face barriers simply getting to the courtroom and, once there, they are often met with a legal system that does not understand their experiences or hear their concerns.
Just over a year ago, significant changes were made to the Divorce Act making it mandatory for judges to consider family violence when deciding on parenting arrangements. These changes also introduced an expansive definition of family violence that goes beyond the physical to include patterns of coercive control.
Changes to legislation are only part of the solution when it comes to protecting women and children in situations of IPV. Education for those tasked with applying the law is equally important if judges are to have the tools and resources they need to make effective parenting decisions.
Over the past year, we have seen some excellent decisions that clearly reflect a deep understanding of the legislation and of IPV, but we also continue to see decisions lacking that understanding. When a judge does not fully understand what family violence looks like and its harmful, long-lasting effects, decisions can be made that put women and children at risk. Stereotypes about violence and victims remain alive, and women who have been subjected to subtle, non-physical forms of violence continue to be disbelieved and re-traumatized, or worse, vilified, throughout the family law process.
We strongly support judicial independence and impartiality and the need to ensure that judges make decisions based only on the law and facts before them. However, in order to do so effectively and competently, judges require ongoing education about the laws they are applying. This should not be controversial.
We understand that a Memorandum of Understanding was recently signed by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Minister David Lametti recognizing the judiciary’s autonomy over education. We believe that Bill C-233 can co-exist with this Memorandum through the permissive language as found in the Judges Act.
While we generally support Bill C-233’s proposed amendments, we suggest that it could be stronger by including a provision that sets suggested requirements for the creation and content of the training similar to s. 60(3) in respect of seminars related to sexual assault law.
In the interests of time, I will save my comments about the details of what we propose for the question period.
We also submit that Bill C-233 should include an amendment to s. 3(b) of the Judges Act to require that new judges undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to IPV and coercive control. This obligation already exists in respect of sexual assault law and social context.
Electronic Monitoring
We are not opposed to electronic monitoring as a mechanism for promoting the safety of victims/survivors of IPV. There is no doubt that this form of electronic tracking can provide women with an added level of security and has the potential to increase both her actual safety and her feelings of security.
But we need to do more before we codify electronic monitoring. In order to avoid unintended negative consequences, let’s take the time to find out more about when and how it will be used and whether it is appropriate in all circumstances. We have a list of questions that we believe need to be answered before proceeding with electronic monitoring, that I would be happy to discuss during the question period, if time permits.
Let me conclude by saying that Luke’s Place supports Bill C-233, but encourages the Committee to consider our proposed amendments as a way to strengthen the Bill and promote safer outcomes for women and children.