Thank you.
Again, our first concern is that coercive control is being used against survivors. While it may seem like a positive development that coercive control is being interpreted broadly by family courts, findings of coercive control are being made against mothers who seek to protect their children from family violence by limiting contact with abusive fathers. So-called parental alienation arguments are often raised by fathers in response to claims of abuse, and courts are sometimes finding women to be perpetrators of coercive control simply for trying to protect their children. In other cases, where women's claims of abuse are not substantiated, this too can be construed as family violence on their part, based on myths and stereotypes about false allegations of violence being made by women who are seeking purported strategic advantage in family law proceedings.
These cases reveal a failure by courts to understand the difference between protective behaviour by mothers on one hand and actual coercive control by fathers on the other hand. They also confirm not just the challenges of proving coercive control for abused women but how their inability to prove coercive control can be used against them. In this respect our research supports the recommendations of the National Association of Women and the Law about the need to limit arguments of parental alienation before family courts. Overall, the family law system indicates that judges are struggling to understand coercive control and the types of evidence that can help establish it. Education of all legal professionals is required and must be undertaken before any new offence of coercive control is implemented in Canada.
A second concern is that survivors need supports to protect themselves against litigation and systems abuse, including in family law cases. We know that abusers often use litigation as a way of furthering their coercive control. In the criminal law sphere, there are protections for complainant/witnesses, such as limits on cross-examination by self-represented accused persons, and the option of testifying behind a screen or with a support person is permitted by the judge. However, this type of protection does not exist in the Divorce Act.
To provide an example, we came across one case from 2023 in which a self-represented father, who was found to have engaged in family violence, was permitted to cross-examine his wife for seven days. While the judge permitted her to testify behind a screen, that ruling was discretionary, and we found that this type of measure is rarely ordered in family law cases involving claims of coercive control. This type of litigation conduct can itself amount to family violence, yet, as noted, it's rare for courts in the family law realm to place limits on it. Our Divorce Act research therefore shows that amendments are required to limit this type of abusive litigation conduct by restricting personal cross-examination and allowing testimony behind screens, and with supports for family litigants.
By way of comparison, in the United Kingdom, reforms to the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021 allow courts to put these types of special measures in place to protect survivors of abuse in family law proceedings, and some Australian states do as well. Overall, we can glean lessons from legal responses to coercive control from other jurisdictions, but also from within Canada, when looking at how the Divorce Act is being implemented. We also need to be mindful of how women experiencing intersecting inequalities can face challenges in having their claims heard and accepted in ways that are trauma informed and informed by principles of substantive equality.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.