Author Archives: Deanne Sowter

About Deanne Sowter

Deanne Sowter is a doctoral candidate and Vanier Scholar at Osgoode Hall Law School. She is also a Research Fellow with the Winkler Institute for Dispute Resolution. Deanne’s research focuses on family law, gender-based violence, and legal ethics, and it has been supported by SSHRC and several prestigious fellowships and scholarships including the Honourable Willard Z Estey Teaching Fellowship and the OBA Foundation Chief Justice of Ontario Fellowship in Legal Ethics and Professionalism Studies. Deanne’s work has been published in several peer-reviewed journals including the Dalhousie Law Journal, the Canadian Bar Review, and the UBC Law Review, and it has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada. She taught as an Instructor at the University of Calgary and as an Adjunct Professor at Western Law. Deanne has a JD from Osgoode Hall Law School, an LLM from the University of Toronto, and is a collaboratively-trained family lawyer.

BC Court of Appeal Recognizes the Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

By: Deanne Sowter and Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), overturning 2023 BCSC 940 (CanLII)

PDF Version: BC Court of Appeal Recognizes the Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

We have both written previously on myths and stereotypes about intimate partner violence (IPV), one of the most common of which is that women make false or exaggerated claims of violence to gain an advantage in family law disputes (see here and here). In KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) recognized the existence of this myth and the need for courts to avoid making assumptions that perpetuate it, holding that it is erroneous to do so unless there is an evidentiary basis for a finding of false allegations. This judgment came just a week before the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision on rape myths and stereotypes, in which it reiterated its recognition of the myth of “false allegations of sexual assault based on ulterior motives” (R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 (CanLII) at paras 35-37). The Supreme Court has not yet acknowledged the myth of false allegations of IPV in the family law context, however. Continue reading →

Torts and Family Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

By: Jennifer Koshan and Deanne Sowter

Case Commented On: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (Can LII); 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Torts and Family Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

Intimate partner violence (IPV) takes many forms, all of which cause harm to survivors (who are disproportionately women and children). In August, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada declared that gender-based violence is an epidemic. However, only certain forms of IPV were subject to legal sanction historically – primarily physical and sexual abuse, although sexual assault against a spouse was only criminalized in 1983 (see Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 278). More recently, beginning in the 1970s and 80s, emotional and financial abuse and coercive control have been recognized as insidious forms of IPV. Coercive control focuses on patterns rather than discrete incidents of abuse, and on the impact on the survivor’s autonomy rather than physical injuries (see Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)). Although coercive control is not currently criminalized in Canada (unlike some other common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales), broad definitions of IPV that include coercive control and emotional and financial abuse are now included in many Canadian laws. There are laws declaring IPV to be relevant to parenting decisions (including relocation), protection orders, early termination of leases, employment leave, and other legal remedies (for a comparison of these laws across Canada, see here). Gaps in the law’s recognition of IPV remain, however. For example, in Alberta, definitions of family violence in the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5, and Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27, do not yet include emotional and financial abuse or coercive control (for discussion see e.g. here). Moreover, as we discuss in this post, tort law has inconsistently provided avenues of economic redress for the harms caused by IPV. Continue reading →

Judging Family Violence: Recommendations for Judicial Practices and Guidelines in Family Violence Cases

By: Deanne Sowter and Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Judging Family Violence: Recommendations for Judicial Practices and Guidelines in Family Violence Cases

There have been some recent legal developments that compel us to consider the role and responsibilities of judges in cases involving family violence. First, amendments to the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), came into effect in March 2021 and the Act now stipulates that family violence is a factor relevant to the best interests of the child. Family violence is finally recognized federally as germane to judicial decisions on parenting, though it is not explicitly recognized as relevant to whether negotiated settlements are an appropriate expectation, which has important implications for the judge’s role in this area. Second, there has been heightened attention to judicial education in the context of gender-based violence, most directly through Bill C-3 (Second Session, Forty-third Parliament). This Bill received Royal Assent in May 2021 and revised the Judges Act, RSC 1985, c J-1, such that in order to be eligible for appointment to superior courts, prospective judges undertake to participate in continuing education on sexual assault law and social context (s 3(b)). While limited to sexual violence, these amendments raise issues about judicial education that are relevant in the family violence context as well. Third, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) released its newly revised Ethical Principles for Judges (EPJ) in June 202 1. The EPJ do not explicitly reference family violence, which is a concern, but there are also opportunities to interpret the EPJ to ensure that family violence considerations are front of mind for judges hearing cases or conducting judicial mediation. In this post, we consider these developments and make recommendations for judicial practices and guidelines that better reflect the gravity and context of family violence. Continue reading →

Mediation: A Warning Not to Bully a Client into Settlement

By: Deanne Sowter

PDF Version: Mediation: A Warning Not to Bully a Client into Settlement

Case Commented On: Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139

If a lawyer fails to prepare his client for mediation, and bullies her into a settlement, a court may find the lawyer negligent and award damages to the client amounting to the difference between what she settled for and what she likely would have obtained in court (or arbitration). That is what happened in Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139, a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In this case, the lawyer was ordered to pay damages of $131,939. In other words, this case is a lawyer’s nightmare. The facts may be uncommon, but the decision includes important warnings. The case has naturally provoked interest from the family law bar and has already been blogged about by Lorne Wolfson here, and by Aaron Franks and Michael Zalev in the June 1, 2020 edition of This Week in Family Law (paywall). As both blogs pointed out, the decision is being appealed. My primary interest with Raichura v Jones is the resounding message that lawyers should not bully their clients into a settlement.

Continue reading →

A Family Lawyer’s Role is (Not) to Minimize Conflict

By: Deanne Sowter

PDF Version: A Family Lawyer’s Role is (Not) to Minimize Conflict

Do family law lawyers have an obligation to minimize conflict? It seems obvious that given the stakes involved in family law matters, especially where there is family violence or children, that a lawyer’s role ought to include minimizing conflict; however, that idea is not as straightforward as it sounds. A family lawyer does have an obligation to advise her client on the impact of actions that inflate conflict; but a lawyer’s role properly understood, does not include an objective of minimizing conflict. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

Minimizing Conflict

The BC Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25 (BC FLA), Rules of Court, and guidance from the BC Law Society all aim to ensure family law proceedings minimize conflict. The BC FLA requires a court to “ensure that a proceeding under this Act is conducted in a manner that strives to minimize conflict, and if appropriate, promote cooperation, by the parties” (s 199(1)(b)(i)). An object of the BC Supreme Court Family Rules, BC Reg 169/2009 is to “help parties resolve the legal issues … in a way that will minimize conflict and promote cooperation between the parties” (R 1-3(1)(a)(ii)).

As an aside, the more time I spend with the BC FLA, the more I admire it. It really is a remarkable piece of legislation in the way it tries to guide families towards a less conflictual resolution to their dispute. The Act encourages parties to make their own decisions, and it aims for them to do so in a way that is less conflictual, responsive to family violence, and mindful of children’s interests. That said, Susan Boyd and Ruben Lindy found that BC courts are still relying on “problematic assumptions about family violence”, indicating that judicial and legal education is still falling short of effectively training the legal profession about family violence (see here at 45).