Final Report of the AD HOC Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group Reviewing Spousal Abuse

ENDNOTES

  • [1] 1996 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, submitted to the United Nations’ Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1996/53), para. 22. See also Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 1999, at 17-19 which provides a comparative summary of surveys on spousal violence against women in Canada, the United States, Australia, England and Wales, Nicaragua, Mexico, Chile, Columbia, Korea, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea.

  • [2] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000 at 16. See also MacLeod, Linda, Battered But Not Beaten…Preventing Wife Battering in Canada (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, June 1987) at 21; and MacLeod, Linda, Wife Battering in Canada: The Vicious Circle (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, January 1980) at 14-16.

  • [3] 1996 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, supra note 1, paras. 26, 29-31.

  • [4] Wife Battering in Canada: The Vicious Circle, supra note 2 at 21.

  • [5] Battered But Not Beaten…Preventing Wife Battering in Canada, supra note 2 at 6.

  • [6] The UCR2 is a police-reported incident-based crime statistics survey that provides information regarding the characteristics of the accused, the victim and the incident itself. In 2000, the UCR2 was based on data provided by 166 police agencies in 9 provinces, representing 53 percent of the national volume of reported crime. A subset, 106 police agencies, has been participating in this survey consistently since 1995 providing an indication of trends over time: Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 2 at 44. Except as otherwise cited, statistics noted in the text are taken from Statistics Canada’s Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2002.

  • [7] The GSS is conducted by Statistics Canada on a cyclical basis. The last victimization component dates back to 1999. The GSS measures eight types of crime, using Criminal Code definitions, as disclosed and experienced by individual victims 15 years of age or older. The 1999 sampling size was 25,876. A specialized survey using a similar approach was also conducted in 1993 (the Violence Against Women Survey): See Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 6 (2002) at 5.

  • [8] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 2 at 11.

  • [9] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2001 at 28.

  • [10] Women who are younger or at childbearing age, are at a higher risk of violence during pregnancy: Andrea Levett and Holly Johnson, “A Statistical Comparison of Women’s Experiences of Violence in Urban and Rural Areas,” Department of Justice Canada, Technical Report 1998-17e at 16.

  • [11] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 2 at 15-16. Other research studies also report a high correlation between spousal violence and stalking (criminal harassment): P. Tjaden and N. Thoennes, “Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male partner violence as measured by the national Violence Against Women Survey” (2000) Violence Against Women 142-161; and J. MacFarlane, et al. “Stalking and intimate partner femicide” (1999) Homicide Studies 300-316.

  • [12] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 2 at 12.

  • [13] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Juristat: National Trends in Intimate Partner Homicides, 1974-2000, (Vol. 22, No. 5) at 5.

  • [14] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 9 at 31.

  • [15] M. Dauvergne, Juristat: Homicide in Canada, 2001 (Vol. 22, No. 7) (2002) at 12. Ontario reported the greatest increase—16 more in 2001 than in 2000.

  • [16] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 9at 31.

  • [17] Ibid. at 31.

  • [18] Ibid. at 32 and 40.

  • [19] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Juristat: Spousal Violence After Marital Separation, (Vol. 21, no. 7) at 7.

  • [20] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 9 at 29.

  • [21] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Juristat: Children Witnessing Family Violence, (Vol. 21, no. 6) at 3.

  • [22] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 9 at 37.

  • [23] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 21 at 3.

  • [24] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 2 at 17.

  • [25] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 21 at 4.

  • [26] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 21 at 2.

  • [27] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 21 at 7.

  • [28] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 2 at 24.

  • [29] L. Greaves, O. Hankivsky, and J. Kingston-Riechers, Selected Estimates of the Costs of Violence Against Women (London, Ontario: Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children, 1995) at 2.

  • [30] Department of Justice Canada (6 June 1989) “Toward a More Effective Criminal Justice Response to Wife Assault: Exploring the Limits and Potential of Effective Intervention,” by Linda MacLeod and Cheryl Picard at 1; and Dianne L. Martin, “Retribution Revisited: A Reconsideration of Feminist Criminal Law Reform Strategies,” (1998), Osgoode Hall Law Journal 151 at 167-8.

  • [31] Jane Ursel, “Report on Domestic Violence Policies and Their Impact on Aboriginal People,” submitted to the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission, (21 February 2001) at 1 and 3.

  • [32] London Family Court Clinic Inc., Wife Assault as a Crime: The Perspectives of Victims and Police Officers on a Charging Policy in London, Ontario From 1980-1990. (Department of Justice Canada WD1991-13a, April 1991) at 3-4.

  • [33] Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, The Myth of “The Mandatory National Charging Policy”, [unpublished draft] (1993) at 10-11.

  • [34] Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Report on Violence in the Family: Wife Battering (May 1982) at 10.

  • [35] Canada, House of Commons, Debates (8 July 1982) at 19119-19120.

  • [36] Keri Sweetman, “Male MPs’ guffaws at wife beating query enrage female MPs” The Ottawa Citizen (13 May 1982).

  • [37] Department of the Solicitor General Canada, supra note 33 at 14.

  • [38] See Federal/Provincial/Territorial Report on Wife Battering to the Meeting of Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, Niagara-on-the-Lake, May 28-30, 1984.

  • [39] Report of the Federal Provincial Task Force on Justice for Victims of Crime (1983) at 160-161.

  • [40] See generally, Department of the Solicitor General Canada, supra note 33.

  • [41] Susan L. Miller, “The Paradox of Women Arrested for Domestic Violence” (2001) Violence Against Women 1339 at 1341 and 1370.

  • [42] See British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General, Crown Counsel Spousal Assault Policy (Discussion Paper), July 2002.

  • [43] Department of Justice Canada, Charging and Prosecution Policies in Cases of Spousal Assault: A Synthesis of Research, Academic, and Judicial Responses”, by Trevor Brown, rr2001-5e, November 2000 at 1.

  • [44] Since the Crown Prosecutors in Quebec authorize the laying of charges or an information, the applicable criteria for decisions related to prosecutions are the same as those applied in relation to charging. In other words, the Crown must consider the following two criteria: the sufficiency of the evidence and the feasibility of prosecution.

  • [45] This recommendation reflects current pro-charge policies in most Canadian jurisdictions. A different approach involving the use of peace bonds after the commencement of a prosecution is being piloted in the Calgary HomeFront project. For more information, see subsection II (2) v).

  • [46] In Quebec, since a Crown prosecutor must authorize the laying of charges, the Crown is present for the appearance of the accused. In cases where there are questions regarding the release of an accused, advice may be sought from the Evaluation services for judicial interim release of violent spouses, which is offered by the Quebec Correctional Services. The evaluation service assists in shedding light on and evaluating the situation, providing recommendations for appropriate conditions regarding the release of the accused and, where necessary, providing referrals to resources that may help the accused. This service is designed to facilitate decisions regarding judicial interim release and to promote the security of victims or those close to them.

  • [47] In the case of Quebec, the criteria for laying a charge or an indictment involve consideration of the sufficiency of evidence and the feasibility of prosecution.

  • [48] Supra note 46.

  • [49] Department of Justice, supra note 43 at 1.

  • [50] In this regard, members of the Working Group sought out the assistance and input of criminal justice personnel in their own jurisdictions. As well, the Working Group was informed by the discussions of FPT senior criminal justice officials at the 2001 FPT Forum on Spousal Abuse, held by the Department of Justice Canada. The Working Group has also applied the IDEAS gender and diversity analysis screening tool developed in 1998 by the former FPT Working Group on Diversity, Equality and Justice.

  • [51] Pro- or mandatory charging policies do not fetter the discretion of police. They place an emphasis on the necessity to charge where there are legal grounds to do so.

  • [52] Ursel, supra note 31 at 9. Although both women and men experience spousal abuse, the Working Group has chosen to describe the spousal abuse victim as “female” and the abuser as “male” in this Report in recognition of the significant body of data, research and experience that documents spousal abuse as being predominantly an issue of male violence against women.

  • [53] See for example, MacLeod, Wife Battering in Canada, supra note 2 at 32-40; Ursel, supra note 31 at 14-18; and Department of Justice Canada, Ethnocultural Minority Women, Spousal Assault and Barriers to Accessing and Problems In Using the Justice System—A Review of the Literature, by Janet Currie, (Technical Report 1995-7e) at 67.

  • [54] Ursel, supra note 31 at 16; and Dianne L. Martin and Janet E. Mosher, “Unkept Promises: Experiences of Immigrant Women With The Neo-Criminalization of Wife Abuse” (1995) C.J.W.L. 3 at 5.

  • [55] Ursel, supra note 31 at 19.

  • [56] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 9 at 32.

  • [57] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 6 at 8-9.

  • [58] Ursel, supra note 31 at 16; Tammy Landau, “Policing and Security in Four Remote Aboriginal Communities: A Challenge to Coercive Models of Police Work” (1996) C.J.C. 1 at 8; and Martin and Mosher, supra note 54 at 35.

  • [59] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 6 at 8.

  • [60] London Family Court Clinic Inc., supra note 32 at 24.

  • [61] Section 495 of the Criminal Code provides that the police may arrest, without a warrant, for a summary conviction or hybrid offence, inter alia, to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence. See Diana Ginn, “Wife Assault, the Justice System and Professional Responsibility” (1995) Alberta Law Review 908 at 913.

  • [62] Lawrence Sherman, and Richard Berk, “The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault” (1984) American Sociological Review 49 at 261-272; and United States Department of Justice, The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New Evidence From the Spouse Assault Replication Program, Christopher D. Maxwell, Joel H. Garner and Jeffrey A. Fagan (July 2001) at 1.

  • [63] Department of Justice Canada, supra note 43 at 1; see also Ursel, supra note 31 at 5-7.

  • [64] United States Department of Justice, supra note 62 at 2.

  • [65] London Family Court Clinic, supra note 32 at 25.

  • [66] Ursel, supra note 31 at 4.

  • [67] Department of Justice Canada, Spousal Assault and Mandatory Charging in the Yukon: Experiences, Perspectives and Alternatives, by Tim Roberts (WD1996-3e) at 69.

  • [68] Department of Justice Canada, Responding to the Needs of Ethnocultural Minority Women in Situations of Spousal Assault, by Janet Currie (Technical Report 1995-8e) at ix-x.

  • [69] Tammy Landau, “Women’s Experiences With Mandatory Charging for Wife Assault in Ontario, Canada: A Case Against the Prosecution” in Domestic Violence: Global Responses (Great Britain: Academic Publishers, 2000) 141 at 152.

  • [70] Department of Justice Canada, supra note 67 at 111; and Department of Justice Canada, supra note 68 at xi and 34.

  • [71] Ursel, supra note 31 at 14-15; and Department of Justice Canada, Synthesis of Department of Justice Canada Research Findings on Spousal Assault, by Tammy Landau (WD1998-5e) at 12-15. See also Miller, supra note 41 at 1342-1343.

  • [72] London Family Court Clinic, supra note 32 at 16 and 31-36.

  • [73] Kelly Hannah-Moffat, “To Charge or Not to Charge: Front Line Officers’ Perceptions of Mandatory Charge Policies” in Mariana Valverde, Linda MacLeod & Kirsten Johnson, eds., Wife Assault and the Canadian Criminal Justice System (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1995) 36 at 43 and 45.

  • [74] Hannah-Moffat, supra note 73 at 43 and 45.

  • [75] Ursel, supra note 31 at 18; George S. Rigakos, “The Politics of Protection: Battered Women, Protection Orders, and Police Subculture” (1998) at 91. See as well, Ginn, supra note 61 at 912-913 and Department of Justice Canada, A Review of Section 264 (Criminal Harassment) of the Criminal Code of Canada, by Richard Gill and Joan Brockman (WD1996-7e) at 43.

  • [76] Rigakos, supra note 75 at 90-91. For the purpose of this study, “protective court orders” included Criminal Code recognizance orders under s. 810 and civil restraining orders issued under the BC Family Relations Act, s. 36.1 (breach of which was a provincial offence, processed under the Offences Act).

  • [77] Miller, supra note 41 at 1343.

  • [78] Ursel, supra note 31 at 20.

  • [79] See for example, the San Diego Police Department’s “Dual Arrest—Primary Aggressor Rule” (March 1996).

  • [80] Commission of Inquiry into the Deaths of Rhonda Lavoie and Roy Lavoie, A Study of Domestic Violence and the Justice System in Manitoba (1997) at 119.

  • [81] Ursel, supra note 31 at 21.

  • [82] For example, in Quebec the Crown Prosecutor’s decision to approve the laying of an information or an indictment must be preceded by a verification of the investigation report in light of two sets of criteria, namely, criteria related to the sufficiency of the evidence and criteria related to the feasibility of the prosecution. Effectively, the Crown Prosecutor must be personally convinced, having examined all of the evidence, including possible defences, that an offence has occurred and that the offence was committed by the accused and be reasonably convinced of the Crown’s ability to establish the guilt of the accused.

  • [83] Quebec does not have any official Alternative Measures programs and therefore does not take a position on the use of these programs in spousal abuse cases.

  • [84] London Family Court Clinic Inc., supra note 32 at 19 and 51.

  • [85] Referenced in Department of Justice Canada, Literature Review of the Manitoba Spouse Abuse Project, by Prairie Research Associates Inc. (Technical Report 1991-1) at 23.

  • [86] Ursel, supra note 31 at 28; and Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Studies), supra note 2 at 46-47.

  • [87] Department of Justice Canada, supra note 85 at 24 and Department of Justice Canada, Manitoba Spouse Abuse Tracking Project, by Prairie Research Associates (Final Report, Vol. 1) (WD1994-18e) at 69.

  • [88] Linda MacLeod, “Policy Decisions and Prosecutorial Dilemmas: The Unanticipated Consequences of Good Intentions” in Wife Assault and the Canadian Criminal Justice System, supra note 73 at 56; Department of Justice Canada, supra note 43 at 9.

  • [89] MacLeod, supra note 88 at 49-55.

  • [90] Ursel, supra note 31 at 30.

  • [91] Myrna Dawson, and Ronit Dinovitzer, “Victim Cooperation and the Prosecution of Domestic Violence in a Specialized Court” (2001) Justice Quarterly 593 at 614.

  • [92] Department of Justice Canada, supra note 67 at 111; Landau, supra note 69 at 152.

  • [93] Department of Justice Canada, supra note 43 at 4.

  • [94] See, for example, Lauren Bennett, Lisa Goodman, and Mary Ann Dutton, “Systemic Obstacles to the Criminal Prosecution of a Battering Partner—A Victim Perspective” (1999) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 761; and Martin and Mosher, supra 54 at 41-43.

  • [95] In the case of Quebec, the criteria for laying a charge or an indictment involve consideration of the sufficiency of evidence and the feasibility of prosecution.

  • [96] This recommendation reflects current pro-prosecution policies in most Canadian jurisdictions. A different approach involving the use of peace bonds after the commencement of a prosecution is currently being piloted in the Calgary HomeFront pilot project. For more information, see subsection II (2) v).

  • [97] Quebec does not have any official Alternative Measures programs and therefore does not take a position on the use of these programs in spousal violence cases.

  • [98] Young Offenders Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.Y-1, s. 4.

  • [99] Bill C-22, formerly Bill C-41, proclaimed into force September 3, 1996.

  • [100] Department of Justice Canada, Sentencing Reform (Backgrounder) (28 August 1996) at 3.

  • [101] Ibid. at 3.

  • [102] Admissions made by the person during the course of Alternative Measures are not admissible against the person in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings: Criminal Code, Subsection 717(3).

  • [103] Similarly, offenders processed through the traditional criminal justice system who receive a conditional discharge or absolute discharge, either with or without participation in a specialized program, do not receive a record of conviction.

  • [104] Department of Justice Canada, An Evaluation of Post-Charge Diversion (Final Report), (rr 2001-7e) at 1-2.

  • [105] Boudreau v. R. (17 April 2002), S.H. No. 176596, oral decision published October 26, 2002, N.S.S.C. per MacDonald, A.J.C.

  • [106] Equinox Consulting Inc., A Study of Victim Satisfaction with Alternative Measures on Prince Edward Island, December 2002, at p. 24.

  • [107] At the international level, the United Nations describes a restorative justice process as one that involves the victim, the offender and the community and that seeks to resolve matters arising from the crime and to thereby restore harmony between the victim, the offender and the community: United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters, approved at the 11th Session of the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, E/2002/30, E/CN.15/2002/14 at 7.

  • [108] There are those who feel that truly restorative processes require the consent and voluntary participation of the victim of the offence. Others feel that restorative processes can be legitimate and effective without victim consent or participation and that the role of the victim in the process is defined by the individual circumstances of each case. Consequently, while there is a shared sense that this may be an important component of restorative processes generally and a critical consideration in spousal abuse cases, the working group could not reach consensus on including a requirement for victim consent in its working definition of restorative justice.

  • [109] See, for example, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Restorative Justice, Restorative Justice in Canada: A Consultation Paper, May 2000.

  • [110] See, for example, a similar listing of risk factors that should be considered in British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General, Crown Counsel Spousal Assault Policy (Discussion Paper) (July 2002) at 5.

  • [111] To be further defined and accord with subsection 717(1)(a) of the Criminal Code: “…or the Attorney General’s delegate or authorized by a person or person within a class of persons, designated by the lieutenant governor in council of a province.”

  • [112] Jeffrey Fagan, The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits (NIJ Research Report) (January 1996).

  • [113] Kristin Littel, et al., Assessing the Justice System Response to Violence Against Women: A Tool for Communities to Develop Coordinated Responses (Minnesota Centre Against Violence and Abuse, 1998) at 14-17, also at (http://www.vaw.umn.edu/Promise/PP3.htm).

  • [114] Sandra J. Clark, et al., Coordinated Community Responses to Domestic Violence in Six Communities: Beyond the Justice System (Urban Institute, 1996) (http://www.urban.org/crime/ccr96.htm); E. Buzawa and C. Buzawa, Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? (Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications Inc., 1996).

  • [115] Melanie Shepard, Evaluating Coordinated Community Responses to Domestic Violence (Minnesota Centre Against Violence and Abuse, 1999) (Violence Against Women Online Resources, www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet/ccr.htm).

  • [116] D. Gamache, J. Edleson and M. Schock, “Coordinated police, judicial and social service response to woman battering: A multi-baseline evaluation across three communities” in G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. Kirkpatrick and M. Straus, eds, Coping with Family Violence: Research and Policy Perspectives (Newbury Park: SAGE, 1988).

  • [117] Nova Scotia Department of Justice, Framework for Action Against Family Violence: A Review by K.M. Waters (1999)

  • [118] Nova Scotia Department of Justice, Nova Scotia Family Violence Framework for Action Review: Interjurisdictional Comparison and Literature Review by Carolyn Marshall (2001) at 55.

  • [119] Department of the Solicitor General Canada, An Overview of Corrections Research and Development Projects on Family Violence by Karen Myers (1996) at 15.

  • [120] Fagan, supra 112 at 32.

  • [121] Although Quebec does not have a specialized spousal violence court, criminal justice officials may nonetheless rely on the Evaluation service, established by Correctional Services of Quebec, for judicial interim release of violent spouses. This service provides clarification for the courts by providing an evaluation of the accused, by recommending applicable conditions for the accused and, where needed, by referring the accused to specialized assistance services.

  • [122] Jane Ursel, “The Winnipeg Family Violence Court” in M. Valverde, L. MacLeod and K. Johnson eds., Wife Assault and the Canadian Criminal Justice System: Issues and Policies (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1995).

  • [123] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics). Ursel, Jane, “Winnipeg Family Violence Court Report” in Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000, (2000).

  • [124] Nova Scotia Department of Justice, supra note 118.

  • [125] Statistics Canada, (2000) supra note 123 at 48.

  • [126] Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, The Evaluation of the Domestic Violence Courts: Their Functioning and Effects in the First Eighteen Months of Operation, 1998-1999 by Sharon Moyer et al. (2000).

  • [127] The early intervention (EI) model was piloted in three sites (Peel, Durham and North Bay) and the coordinated prosecution (CP) model in the other three sites (Ottawa, London and Hamilton).

  • [128] Section 720 provides that the court shall, as soon as practicable after an offender has been found guilty, conduct proceedings to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed. This section is currently being reviewed by the FPT Working Group on Sentencing.

  • [129] In addition to the Calgary Domestic Violence Courtroom, a specialized courtroom was subsequently established in Edmonton in January 2002.

  • [130] Prince Edward Island, PEI Victims of Family Violence Act: Final Evaluation Report by Bradford and Associates (2001).

  • [131] Nova Scotia Department of Justice, supra note 118.

  • [132] Howard Research, Implementation and Impact of the Protection Against Family Violence Act: Final Report, Alberta, 2000; Bradford and Associates, Final Report: Victims of Family Violence Act Monitoring Study, Prince Edward Island, 1998; Prairie Research Associates, Review of the Saskatchewan Victims of Domestic Violence Act, Department of Justice Canada, WD1996-6e, 1996; Prairie Research Associates, A Further Review of the Saskatchewan Victims of Domestic Violence Act, Department of Justice Canada, WD199-1e, 1999.

  • [133] Howard Research 2000; Prairie Research Associates 1996 and 1999, supra note 132.

  • [134] Prairie Research Associates, 1999, supra note 132.

  • [135] In September 2001, in a report to Ministers, the Ad Hoc Working Group recommended that s.127 of the Criminal Code (Disobeying Order of the Court) be hybridized and that a maximum penalty of six months be imposed on summary conviction and two years on indictment.

  • [136] Portions of this section have been excerpted from Nova Scotia Department of Justice, A Review of the Effectiveness and Viability of Domestic Violence Interventions as an Adjunct to the Formal Criminal Justice System by Judy Crump (2001).

  • [137] Department of Justice Canada, Alternatives to Prosecution in Domestic Violence Cases: An Overview of the Research Literature by Sharon Moyer (2000) at 10.

  • [138] Ibid. at 1.

  • [139] Jaffe, P.G., Hastings, H., Reitzel, D., & Austin, G.W., (1991) The Impact of Police Laying Charges in Brown, Trevor, Charging and Prosecution Policies in Cases of Spousal Assault: A Synthesis of Research, Academic and Judicial Responses, Justice Canada November 2000.

  • [140] For example, second-stage housing helps women make the transition to independent living, often on exit from a shelter.

  • [141] This is a census survey of known residential (shelter) facilities in every province conducted every two years. Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Juristat: Canada’s Shelters for Abused Women, 1999-2000, (Vol. 21, No. 1) at 2 and 11.

  • [142] Ibid. at 4.

  • [143] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra, note 141 at 6.

  • [144] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000 at 19.

  • [145] Ibid. at 15.

  • [146] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 141 at 8.

  • [147] Weisz, Taggert, Mockler and Streich, cited in Leslie M. Tutty, Gilliam Weaver, and Michael A. Rothery, “Residents’ Views of the Efficacy of Shelter Services for Assaulted Women” in Violence Against Women Vol. 5, No. 8 (1999) at 425-441.

  • [148] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra, note 141 at 10.

  • [149] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 1999 at 42.

  • [150] Edward W. Gondolf, “Service Contact and Delivery of a Shelter Outreach Project” in Journal of Family Violence Vol. 13, No. 2 (1998) at 131-145.

  • [151] However, the goal of shelters, as typically reflected in policy and program standards, is to provide a place of safety and an opportunity for women to learn of services and alternatives for themselves and their children.

  • [152] Leslie M. Tutty, “Post-Shelter Services: The Efficacy of Follow-up Programs for Abused Women” (1996) Research on Social Work Practice 6.4 (1996) at 425-441.

  • [153] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 141 at 10.

  • [154] Statistics Canada (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics), supra note 144 at 16.

  • [155] Jeffrey L. Edleson, “Studying the Co-occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence in Families” in Sandra A. Graham-Bermann and Jeffrey L Edleson, eds, Domestic Violence in the Lives of Children: The Future of Research, Intervention, and Social Policy, (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2001) 91-110 at 91.

  • [156] Jerome B. Kolbo, Eleanor H. Blakely, and David Engleman, “Children Who Witness Domestic Violence: A Review of Empirical Literature” (1996) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 11.2 at 281-293.

  • [157] Peter G. Jaffe, Samantha E. Poisson, and Alison Cunningham, “Domestic Violence and High-Conflict Divorce: Developing a New Generation of Research For Children”in Sandra A. Graham-Bermann and Jeffrey L. Edleson, eds., supra note 155 at 189.

  • [158] Department of Justice Canada, Intervention Models for Children Who Witness Violence: A Needs Assessment, by Educon Marketing and Research Systems (July, 1998) at 5-6.

  • [159] Family group decision making was piloted in 1993 at three sites, Nain (Inuit), St. John’s (urban) and Port au Port Peninsula (rural). In recognizing that child maltreatment and woman abuse often occur together, the project sought to build partnerships among family, community and government to keep children and adults safe. Most referrals, however, pertained to child abuse or neglect and youth unmanageability and did not specify the extent of woman abuse. The plan developed at the family group conference, involving relatives, friends and other close supports, required approval of the referring authority (e.g., child welfare or correctional services). See Joan Pennell and Gale Burford Family Group Decision Making: After the Conference—Progress in Resolving Violence and Promoting Well-Being (St. John’s Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland, School of Social Work, 1997).

  • [160] To date, abusive partner intervention programs have focused on male perpetrators.

  • [161] Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, An Overview of Corrections Research and Development Projects on Family Violence by Karen Myers (1996); Robert C. Davis and Bruce G. Taylor, Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence? A Synthesis of the Literature on Women and Domestic Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Lynette Feder, ed., (New York and London: The Haworth Press, 1999) at 69-93.

  • [162] Davis and Taylor, ibid.

  • [163] Department of Justice Canada, An Evaluation Study of the Turning Point Project: A Treatment Program for Men Who Batter Their Partners (Working Document by Thomas Gabor, 1993); Donald G. Dutton, The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships (New York and London: The Guilford Press, 1998).

  • [164] Davis and Taylor, supra note 161.

  • [165] Hamberger, K.L., & Hastings, J.E., (1993) Court-mandated treatment of men who assault their partner in N.Z. Hilton, Legal Responses to Wife Assault. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Fagan, J., Friedman, E., Wexler, S., & Lewis V. (1984) Final Report: National Family Violence Evaluation, Grant 80-JN-AX-0004, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC, Department of Justice.

  • [166] Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, A Multi-site Study of Treatment for Abusive Men, by Karl R. Hanson and Susanne Wallace-Capretta (2000).

  • [167] Davis and Taylor, supra, note 161.

  • [168] Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, supra, note 161.

  • [169] Department of Justice Canada, supra, note 137.

  • [170] An overview of intervention programs provided in provincial and territorial jurisdictions is contained in section VI of this report.

  • [171] See Diane Hiebert-Murphy and Barry Trute, “Treatment for Couples Who Have Experienced Violence: The Couples Project” (1998) Manitoba Social Worker, vol. 30, No 4, 1 at 8-10.

  • [172] Department of Justice Canada, supra note 137.

  • [173] Jan Roehl and Kristin Guertin, “Intimate Partner Violence: The Current Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing Offenders” (2000) 21 The Justice System Journal: 171-198 at 172.

  • [174] Neil Websdale, Lethality Assessment Tools: A Critical Analysis (Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, University of Minnesota, 2001) at 1.

  • [175] David S Riggs., Marie B. Caulfield and Amy E. Street, “Risk for Domestic Violence: Factors Associated with Perpetration and Victimization” (2000) Journal of Clinical Psychology Vol. 56, No. 10:1289-1316 at 1290.

  • [176] Correlates of domestic violence perpetration are identified in the categories of prior relationship aggression, demographic and psychological characteristics, psychopathology, and relationship characteristics. See Riggs, et al., ibid. at 1292-1297.

  • [177] The research on factors correlated with domestic violence victimization is much less clear. See Riggs, et al., supra note 175 at 1298-1301.

  • [178] Jan Roehl and Kristin Guertin, supra note 173 at 174.

  • [179] Jacquelyn Campbell, “Issues in Risk Assessment in the Field of Intimate Partner Violence: What Practitioners Need to Know” presented at An International Conference on Children Exposed to Domestic Violence, Our Children Our Future: A Call to Action, London, Ontario (June 2001) at 12.

  • [180] Jacquelyn Campbell, 1995, cited in Jan Roehl and Kristin Guertin, supra note 173 at 174. In an analysis of 493 actual and attempted femicides in 11 US cities, Campbell has more recently identified further predictive and protective factors. See also Websdale, supra note 174 at 3.

  • [181] Jacquelyn Campbell, Danger Assessment Instrument, 1985, 1988.

  • [182] Jan Roehl and Kristin Guertin, supra note 173 at 179.

  • [183] P. Randall Kropp, Stephen D. Hart, Christopher D. Webster, and Derek Eaves, Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide, 2nd ed. (Vancouver, British Columbia: British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence).

  • [184] Randall Kropp, et al., ibid. at 6-7.

  • [185] Websdale, supra note 174 at 6.

  • [186] Riggs, et al., supra note 175 at 1292.

  • [187] Jan Roehl, and Kristin Guertin (1998) cited in Websdale, supra note 174.

  • [188] Websdale, supra note174 at 7.

  • [189] See section VI of this report for a summary of data collection and monitoring systems.

  • [190] Nova Scotia Department of Justice, Nova Scotia Family Violence Framework for Action Review: Interjurisdictional Comparison and Literature Review by Carolyn Marshall (2001).

  • [191] See section VI of this report for a cross-jurisdictional summary.

  • [192] Department of Justice Canada, Review of Provincial and Territorial Domestic Violence Legislation and Implementation Strategies by Tim Roberts (2001).

  • [193] Nova Scotia Department of Justice, Framework for Action Against Family Violence: A Review by K.M. Waters (1999).

  • [194] Nova Scotia Department of Justice, supra, note 190.

  • [195] This model, employed by the Nova Scotia Family Violence Prevention Initiative, which trained more than 6,000 professionals during its tenure, worked exceptionally well. Training materials were jointly developed, including program policy specifying roles and guidelines for an effective response for that profession or sector of workers. Delivery strategy involved use of both a family violence “expert” and a peer-to-peer model that enhanced credibility for learners. In this way, training was specific to the profession, clearly defined roles and performance expectations of staff, and took into account the particular challenges faced by that sector in responding.

  • [196] In Quebec, the charging policy is identical to the prosecution policy and is therefore not distinguished as such.

  • [197] Quebec does not have any official Alternative Measures programs and therefore does not take a position on the use of these programs in spousal abuse cases.

  • [198] Supra note 196.

  • [199] This recommendation reflects current pro-prosecution policies in most Canadian jurisdictions. A different approach involving the use of peace bonds after the commencement of a prosecution is currently being piloted in the Calgary HomeFront project. For more information, see subsection II (2) v).

  • [200] Quebec does not have any official Alternative Measures programs and therefore does not take an official position on the use of these programs in spousal violence cases.

  • [201] To be further defined and accord with subsection 717(1)(a) of the Criminal Code: “…or the Attorney General’s delegate or authorized by a person or person within a class of persons, designated by the lieutenant governor in council of a province.”

  • [202] Victim services in this context are defined as services provided as a result of the victim’s involvement with the criminal justice system as distinct from other services, such as shelters, that may be provided to victims.

Date modified: