Category: Family Page 3 of 18

#Don’tDisbelieveHer: Towards Recognition of Myths and Stereotypes about Intimate Partner Violence at the Supreme Court of Canada

Case Commented On: Barendregt v Grebliunas, 2021 BCCA 11 (CanLII); appeal allowed, 2021 CanLII 124350 (SCC; written reasons to follow)

Over the last 20 years, there has been significant progress in the judicial recognition of rape myths and stereotypes (see e.g., R v Seaboyer; R v Gayme, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 577 and more recently, R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (CanLII)). Federally appointed judges must now undertake to participate in education on sexual violence and its social context, but no similar duty exists for judicial education about intimate partner violence (IPV) (see a discussion here). Unfortunately, myths and stereotypes about IPV are not uncommon in Canadian case law. To name a few, survivors of IPV, who are disproportionately women, face allegations that they have lied about or exaggerated IPV out of vengeance, jealousy, or to gain an advantage in family law proceedings; that IPV ends at separation or is irrelevant unless it is physical; and that exposure to IPV has no impact on children (see e.g., here at 46-47). Allegations like this have been called out in feminist socio-legal literature for decades as being grounded in myths and stereotypes, but there are only a handful of cases in which the Supreme Court of Canada has explicitly recognized myths and stereotypes about IPV.

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

By Deanne Sowter

On December 20, 2021

In Family

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.

Family Violence and Family Law in Alberta: The Need for Legislative Reform and Expansive Statutory Interpretation

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 3, 2021

In Family

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Family Violence and Family Law in Alberta: The Need for Legislative Reform and Expansive Statutory Interpretation

Legislation Commented On: Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5 (CanLII)

November is Family Violence Protection Month in Alberta, and this provides a good opportunity to reflect on the laws that address family violence in this province. I have written previously on the intersections amongst laws in Alberta that apply in the context of family violence, as well as how they compare to family violence laws in other jurisdictions (see here and here). Alberta has made good progress in its response to family violence in some areas – for example, residential tenancy law and occupational health and safety law – but there are other areas where we are falling behind, including family law.

The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s Latest Annual Report: Time for a Family Violence Action Plan in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 4, 2021

In Family

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s Latest Annual Report: Time for a Family Violence Action Plan in Alberta

Report Commented On: Family Violence Death Review Committee, 2019/2020 Annual Report

The 2019/2020 Annual Report of Alberta’s Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) appeared with little fanfare on the government’s website in mid-January 2021. There was no news release, perhaps because the UCP government has been called out for failing to respond to the recommendations in two of the FVDRC’s previous reports from 2019 (see a discussion of those reports here and MLA Janis Irwin’s questions in the Legislative Assembly in December 2020 here (at 3804)). This post will review the major findings from the latest FVDRC Annual Report and situate the work of the FVDRC in developments around a provincial action plan on family violence. Given the evidence that family violence has increased and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, including in Alberta, action on the part of the government is critical. Moreover, given that family violence is gendered and disproportionately impacts members of marginalized communities – including during COVID-19 – failure to act has human rights implications for survivors (and non-survivors) of family violence.

Reforming Family Maintenance and Support for Children: Bridging Gaps, or Unduly Restricting Testamentary Freedom?

By Matthew Mazurek

On December 15, 2020

In Family, Wills and Estates

By: Matthew Mazurek

PDF Version: Reforming Family Maintenance and Support for Children: Bridging Gaps, or Unduly Restricting Testamentary Freedom?

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Family Maintenance and Support from the Estate of a Person Who Stood in the Place of a Parent, Report for Discussion 34 (3 November 2020)

ALRI is seeking feedback on Report for Discussion 34 before making final recommendations. Anyone can give feedback by completing a short survey before January 31, 2021.

When a second family in Alberta separates, a child may seek support from a person who stands in the place of a parent under the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5. However, when a person who stands in the place of a parent dies in an intact second family, a child in need is prevented from seeking support from that person’s estate under the Wills and Succession Act, SA 2010, c W-12.2 (WSA). From a child’s perspective, there is little difference between a parent and a parent-like adult separating and the death of one partner. In either circumstance, the child has lost a source of emotional, intellectual, and financial support. Excluding some children in second families from accessing support while providing it to others may not make for prudent policy in today’s legal system. This is what we mean in our Report for Discussion 34 when we say that there may be a gap in the law for the purposes of support for children in Alberta. Should this difference persist in the law as a nod to the testamentary freedom of individuals? Should the gap be bridged by reform to the WSA? Report for Discussion 34 reviews the existing law, analyzes arguments for and against reform, and makes preliminary recommendations.