Preventive Justice? Domestic Violence Protection Orders and their Intersections with Family and Other Laws and Legal Systems

Civil protection order legislation is a distinctive response to domestic violence with its focus on immediate safety and access to justice. Although the legislation was motivated by the need to broaden protective remedies for domestic violence and make them more accessible, similar remedies continue to exist and be utilized in the family law arena—for example, exclusive possession orders for the family home and restraining orders related to family disputes. Some jurisdictions also allow civil protection orders to contain conditions relevant to family law disputes, such as interim parenting orders. Intersections, overlaps and potential conflicts also exist between civil protection order law, criminal law, and child protection law. This article examines Alberta as a case study for exploring the intersections of civil protection orders, family law, and other legal areas and systems. It explores several research questions, including: How are family law disputes affected by the presence of civil protection order proceedings, and vice versa? What are the interactions between the criminal, child protection, and civil protection order systems? What are the access to justice concerns that arise at these intersections and under the civil protection order system more broadly? These questions are answered using several methodologies: a comparative analysis of civil protection order legislation, a case law review, interviews with Alberta-based lawyers and service providers, and observations of civil protection order hearings. The article examines the benefits, barriers, and pitfalls of civil protection orders and concludes with recommendations for further research and reform of the legislation and its application in practice

Investigating Integrated Domestic Violence Courts: Lessons from New York

Extensive law and policy reforms in the area of domestic violence have occurred in the last several decades in the United States and Canada, the latest being the development of specialized domestic violence (DV) courts. DV courts typically operate in the criminal realm, particularly in Canada. A recent innovation that is relatively unique in the U.S. is Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) courts, where criminal, civil and family matters are heard together in a one judge/one family model. This paper examines the literature on DV and IDV courts in Canada and the U.S., and situates these reforms in the context of domestic violence reforms more broadly. Then, it presents a case study of an IDV court in Manhattan, New York, including the results of interviews with litigant advocates and justice sector and institutional representatives as well as courtroom observations. The author concludes that there are many potential benefits to IDV courts, along with some challenges that Canadian jurisdictions intending to implement such courts should address

Investigating Integrated Domestic Violence Courts: Lessons from New York

Extensive law and policy reforms in the area of domestic violence have occurred in the last several decades in the United States and Canada, the latest being the development of specialized domestic violence (DV) courts. DV courts typically operate in the criminal realm, particularly in Canada. A recent innovation that is relatively unique in the U.S. is Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) courts, where criminal, civil and family matters are heard together in a one judge/one family model. This paper examines the literature on DV and IDV courts in Canada and the U.S., and situates these reforms in the context of domestic violence reforms more broadly. Then, it presents a case study of an IDV court in Manhattan, New York, including the results of interviews with litigant advocates and justice sector and institutional representatives as well as courtroom observations. The author concludes that there are many potential benefits to IDV courts, along with some challenges that Canadian jurisdictions intending to implement such courts should address

Challenging Myths and Stereotypes in Domestic Violence Cases

Survivors of domestic violence, who are disproportionately women, face numerous myths and stereotypes about the veracity, nature, and extent of violence they and their children experience. In legal disputes, they encounter allegations that they have lied about or exaggerated domestic violence out of vengeance, jealousy, or to gain an advantage in family law proceedings; that their partners are victims too; that abuse ends at separation or is irrelevant unless it is physical; and that it has no impact on children or only matters if it does. Although scholars and activists have revealed how these allegations are tainted by false and faulty understandings of violence, courts and other decision-makers continue to accept them in many cases. This paper will identify the ongoing influence of myths and stereotypes about domestic violence, focusing on the common and evolving misconceptions that legal actors have about survivors and the violence they experience. False or faulty assumptions about the credibility of domestic violence claims, as well as the nature and impacts of violence, can have serious implications for the impartiality of decision-makers and result in harm to women and children

Investigating Integrated Domestic Violence Courts: Lessons from New York

Extensive law and policy reforms in the area of domestic violence have occurred in the last several decades in the United States and Canada, the latest being the development of specialized domestic violence (DV) courts. DV courts typically operate in the criminal realm, particularly in Canada. A recent innovation that is relatively unique in the United States is integrated domestic violence (IDV) courts, where criminal, civil, and family matters are heard together in a one judge/one family model. This article examines the literature on DV and IDV courts in Canada and the United States, and situates these reforms in the context of domestic violence reforms more broadly. Then it presents a case study of an IDV court in Manhattan, New York, including the results of interviews with litigant advocates, justice sector and institutional representatives, as well as observations from the courtroom. The author concludes that there are many potential benefits to IDV courts, along with some challenges that Canadian jurisdictions intending to implement such courts should address

Inequality and Identity at Work

A clinic at the University of Calgary law school in 2014 worked with unions and workers\u27rights groups to develop constitutionalchallenges to the historic exclusion of farm workers from labour and employment legislation in Alberta. After exploring arguments under sections 2(d), 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we concluded that, based on the existing jurisprudence, the equality rights arguments under section 15 were the weakest. This article explores what is lost when we fail to recognize the identity-based harms that flow from government violations of equality rights. It considers the nature of these harms, why they may be minimized or ignored, and the consequences of ignoring those harms. These issues are examined in the context of workers\u27 rights, and in particular those of farm workers, but the analysis is also relevant to broader contexts. The article concludes with thoughts on how the Supreme Court of Canada\u27s approach to section 15 of the Charter should be modified in order to better capture identitybased harms

A Comparison of Gender-Based Violence Laws in Canada: A Report for the National Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence Working Group on Responsive Legal and Justice Systems

This report undertakes a comparison of laws related to gender-based violence across Canada with a view to identifying promising practices. We use the definition of gender-based violence from the United Nations as our frame, analyzing laws relating to “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.” While the UN definition includes both intimate partner violence and sexual violence, our focus is largely on violence in the context of intimate relationships (including intimate partner sexual violence). We are guided by a broad conception of access to procedural and substantive justice that encompasses equal protection of the law, equal access to legal rights and remedies, and safety for women and children

Impact of the Feminist Judgment Writing Projects: The Case of the Women’s Court of Canada

The first feminist judgment writing project, the Women's Court of Canada (WCC), published its initial set of judgments ten years ago in 2008. Although the WCC has led to feminist judgment projects in several other jurisdictions, research shows that the WCC judgments have not been cited very extensively by other academics, let alone by courts, tribunals or lawyers. This article explores whether this lack of citations is cause for concern, raises some possible explanations, and discusses strategies for giving feminist judgment projects broader and deeper impact. El primer proyecto feminista de redacci&oacute;n de sentencias, el Tribunal de Mujeres de Canad&aacute; (WCC son sus siglas en ingl&eacute;s), public&oacute; su primer conjunto de sentencias hace diez a&ntilde;os, en 2008. Aunque el WCC ha liderado proyectos de tribunales feministas en otras jurisdicciones, la investigaci&oacute;n demuestra que las sentencias del WCC no han sido frecuentemente citadas por otros acad&eacute;micos, mucho menos a&uacute;n por tribunales y abogados. Este art&iacute;culo analiza si esta ausencia de citaciones debiera preocuparnos, propone algunas posibles explicaciones y debate estrategias para dotar a los proyectos de sentencias feministas de un mayor y m&aacute;s profundo impacto. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3285082</a

Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat: An Arbitrary Approach to Discrimination

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (“RCAP”) acknowledged education as essential to both enhancing the lives of Aboriginal individuals and achieving their collective goals. Education can improve the capacities and talents of Aboriginal citizens to assume the responsibilities of operating self-governing and community structures. In Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, these 20-year-old conclusions were the focus of the first paragraphs of both the factum of the Chief and Council of the Kahkewistahaw First Nation and the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Education was also a key component of a more recent commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (“TRC”). Its inquiry into Canada’s residential schools confirmed that “the residential school system was an education system for Aboriginal children in name only for much of its existence.” Indeed, in their 2012 Interim Report, the TRC concluded that “[r]esidential schools constituted an assault on self-governing and self-sustaining Aboriginal nations,” because “one of the most far-reaching and devastating legacies of residential schools has been their impact on the educational and economic success of Aboriginal people”. The TRC’s finding that “the lowest levels of educational success are in those communities with the highest percentages of descendants of residential school Survivors: First Nations people living on reserves, and Inuit” is significant for the issues in Taypotat. These findings also illustrate that, for Aboriginal people, education cannot be understood simply or necessarily as positive