Status of Women Committee on Nov. 17th, 2025

[Deepa Mattoo]

My biggest intervention on this many times in front of this committee and other committees has been that there needs to be a survivor-centric risk assessment done by the police services. We heard about this tragic case of Darian Henderson-Bellman. In that case also, I feel like the survivor's own sense of fear was not taken seriously by our police services. They focus so much on the person who has committed the crime, thinking about whether he will commit a crime again, what his situation is, what his life is like. There is much less focus on the survivor's own sense of fear and dynamic sense of fear, which evolves and changes every minute. I think that's where the biggest gap is in our police services. There is also a lack of understanding of the experiences of marginalized and racialized people, and people who don't speak English. I think that's where the big challenges are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Ms. Larouche for six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today.

Your expertise is remarkable. Every day, you work with people who need support. Indeed, victims experience situations that are not necessarily easy and that can mean they have many questions.

Ms. Gagnon, I will start with you.

You referred to section 810 of the Criminal Code in your opening remarks, but can you tell us more? What do you see as the main problems with regard to the use of section 810?

[Karine Gagnon]

As we mentioned in our opening remarks, one of the problems is the duration of the measures provided for in section 810, which is relatively short. Ms. Davis also referred to this problem.

Furthermore, there should be an ongoing risk assessment. When the conditions are not complied with, that is when the harm occurs; the condition has not been complied with. It would be important to have an ongoing risk assessment.

Finally, as I mentioned, legislative changes in that regard are needed, but, when someone fails to comply with their conditions, they should have to demonstrate to the court that they still deserve to be released and not the opposite. In our opinion, the burden of proof should be reversed.

I do not know whether my colleague Ms. Huet would like to add anything.

[Jackie Huet, Director General, Crime Victims Assistance Centre of the Estrie region, Crime Victims Assistance Centres Network]

There is also the fact that, unfortunately, section 810 is used to settle cases more quickly when there is concern that proceedings will be stayed under the Jordan decision. This should not, however, form the basis for its use in such cases.

What has not been mentioned either is that it is often up to the victim to take the necessary steps themselves. However, for someone who has been a victim of domestic violence, for example, recalling the events and putting together a case to explain to the court why they fear for their safety is very complex. It is very complicated. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but in Quebec, victims are not entitled to legal aid to undertake this process. When this process is not triggered by the prosecution and the victim must begin the process themselves, this is another major problem.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I understand, and I will take this question about the Jordan decision further, since you mentioned it.

What adverse effects of the Jordan decision do you observe in domestic violence cases?

The question is for Ms. Huet or Ms. Gagnon.

[Jackie Huet]

Based on what we have observed, prosecutors are concerned about a stay of proceedings under the Jordan decision, so some cases will be resolved quickly through a guilty plea by the accused, or even through the imposition of conditions under section 810, even though this may not necessarily be what the victim wants. Prosecutors are under a lot of pressure when they fear a stay of proceedings, so sometimes the victim's wishes or needs are not taken into consideration.

Prosecutors also feel a lot of pressure when there are delays in getting cases authorized. All kinds of legal strategies are put in place to try to get the case authorized as close as possible to the promise to appear deadline, for example, in order to try to save time. However, these strategies do not take into account the needs of victims.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Would you like to add anything, Ms. Gagnon?

[Karine Gagnon]

I would like to point out that prosecutors often have the victim's safety in mind when they decide that, rather than risk having a stay of proceedings under the Jordan decision, it is better to use section 810 and at least impose certain conditions. However, was using section 810 the right solution, objectively speaking, given what the person had been through and the acts they were subjected to? In many situations, unfortunately, the answer is no. We understand very well why a prosecutor would ultimately opt for orders under section 810 in this type of situation. However, in many cases, this is unfortunately not the appropriate solution.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ultimately, ladies, would you say that the Jordan decision is causing cases to be dropped, putting victims at risk?

Shouldn't we revisit the issue by proposing a bill to better regulate the Jordan decision? That way, in domestic violence cases and other cases, people would not have the Jordan decision hanging over their heads like a sword of Damocles.

[Jackie Huet]

I recognize the merits of the Jordan decision. Indeed, excessively long proceedings must be avoided, so this decision serves a purpose.

Rather than extending the allowable time frame, I think we should look at what is causing such delays and what is putting our prosecutors in this situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

Thank you.

Now we're going into our second round.

We will start with Ms. Cody for five minutes.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Through you, Chair, my question is for the deputy chief.

Peace bonds, under section 810 of the Criminal Code, can be an important tool, but survivors of coercion and abuse face real barriers. They often carry the burden of initiating the process, proving fear on reasonable grounds and navigating court, all while trying to stay safe. There's room to make this tool stronger and more survivor-focused.

I've heard a lot of concerns about the short duration of peace bonds. A report on the findings of a community-based study conducted by Battered Women's Support Services recommends extending the duration of family law protection orders to two years for cases of intimate partner violence or gender-based violence, with the possibility of longer durations.

Do you think changing the peace bonds from one year to a two-year maximum would be enough, or should there be a longer time frame? How do we better account for cumulative evidence of intimidation and stalking, incorporate the risk assessments for high-risk offenders and improve the data collection?

[Jennifer Davis]

That's a very loaded question. I might have to ask you to break it down a bit.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Let's start with the change in the peace bonds from one year to two years maximum. Is that enough, or should we consider longer durations?

[Jennifer Davis]

I appreciate that, on average, a peace bond is 12 months, but it can be extended or reapplied for. There is value in having longer durations for peace bonds available when they are needed.

As I mentioned earlier, especially in cases where an individual—a dependent victim—chooses to stay with their partner or, for some reason, there is something connecting them and keeping them together, and they need those additional supports in place, it can take an extended period of time to work through counselling, housing and financial stability, or to work through programs the offender may be going through as well, such as anger management. Being able to have an extended peace bond to cover that duration of time, especially when it's potentially being monitored through early intervention programs, would be of huge value.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

The second part of that question was about shifting the onus from the survivor to the offender. How do we better account for cumulative evidence of intimidation and stalking, incorporate these risk assessments for high-risk offenders and improve the data collection?

[Jennifer Davis]

That brings us back to the conversation we were having earlier on the reverse onus. I see value, especially when we're looking at repeat offenders and defendants who were previously charged and who may have demonstrated violence in the past towards a victim. There should be an onus on the defendant in those cases to demonstrate to the court why they should be released and why they will not continue to pose a risk to the safety of either the victim or the community at large. I would agree with the reverse onus comment and shifting the onus from the Crown to the defendant in those cases.

With respect to the coercive control piece, I believe that being able to identify coercive control earlier helps us address and break the cycle of domestic violence earlier. I consider coercive control—whether it's psychological or financial—to be abuse. It's not physical abuse, but it is still abuse. Oftentimes, we don't identify or aren't able to identify what those signs of coercive control might be.

There is value not only in education and training for police officers, who are often the first to come into contact with victims, but also in other agencies—I mentioned women's crisis services and victim services—that may be the first to come into contact with them to then work toward finding solutions. We find this especially in cases of new immigrants or refugees, those who are precariously housed or who may be living in remote areas, where they are financially dependent on their abuser.

Being able to identify those signs and provide intervention and support earlier would be beneficial.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Peace bonds related specifically to intimate partner violence and domestic violence may include a condition for the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device. In your opinion, are electronic monitoring devices—GPS tracking systems or the approach notification bracelets—effective tools in the context of intimate partner violence and domestic violence?

[Jennifer Davis]

My concern is that they provide a false sense of security. We have seen GPS monitoring exceed about 500% in Ontario. Locally, in the Waterloo region, the number of people we're monitoring with GPS has increased by 25%. When someone is found to potentially be breaching or their alarm has gone off, that's a call for service to the police. Depending on the prioritization of the call, there could be a delay in the response.

We also know that there is a lot of manipulation of GPS and ankle bracelet monitoring going on. We have cases where individuals have taken a video of themselves with their surety, saying they're in the company of their surety, and they leave the house with them and do not return home for 30 days. We are never alerted to it. We can't do any follow-up on it. It then falls on the police to prove how long that person has been violating the terms of their ankle bracelet monitoring.

I would be concerned that there are some cases where it's beneficial and someone is willing to abide by the conditions of it, but someone who wants to commit a crime against an intimate partner—stalk them or whatnot—is not going to be deterred by ankle bracelet monitoring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Marilyn Gladu]

I'm sorry, that's the end of that time.

Now we're going to go to Ms. Fancy for five minutes. I'll add a little bit of extra time; that was a great answer and I wanted to hear it.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you very much to all of the witnesses today.

I have just one question in particular that I'm hoping to rotate through everybody. The preface to this is that I was an educator for almost 20 years as a high school math teacher and a high school administrator. I've dealt a lot, over the years, with kids who witness to domestic abuse.

What can we do as a federal government to help better support kids? All of you today are navigators, in a sense, and sometimes we act as little silos where we're not communicating with each other. I really want to know how we best support our kids. The motion that we're discussing today is about women and youth, so in terms of our kids, what can we do better to help break those familial or generational abuse cycles?

I'd like to start with Ms. Mattoo.

[Deepa Mattoo]

I think one of the big pieces that we have alluded to in our recommendation is that we need to amend the Criminal Code to authorize courts to impose rehabilitative and supportive conditions, alongside the restrictive conditions. The research is telling us that restrictive conditions are not really bringing the rate of violence down or the reporting down. Countries like Scotland and New Zealand are trying bail supervision programs. There is better compliance and safety if you actually put more responsibility on the perpetrator.

You need to also bring on sureties for mandatory orientation and training, recognizing that there are warning signs that they can be reporting.

I think, overall, we need to have better regular check-ins with law enforcement. There needs to be attendance at counselling and intervention programs, and I think I'm supportive of electronic monitoring in high-risk cases. We just heard from my co-panellist who said that is really creating a monitoring compliance issue, however, if we put the burden back on the perpetrator for the reporting of violations, I think we can create an environment and shift the pendulum to where people are more self-responsible.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Ms. Mattoo.

Ms. Davis, I'll ask you the same question in terms of navigation services, primarily with our kiddos.

[Jennifer Davis]

The biggest one that we're investing in right now is our engagement with youth—whether it's elementary age youth or whether it's at the high school level—through our youth strategy. This is something we focus on through education with youth. It's on identifying that domestic violence and those behaviours, whether they're witnessing it.... They're also potentially starting to demonstrate those behaviours in early relationships that they're having. A lot of it is around education and what healthy relationships look like, but then also providing them access to the resources they need.

Part of it also comes down to building positive relationships. I know, for us, that's a really important part with police, that individuals know they can call the police for help in any of those situations. However, the biggest one I would say would be what we're doing around educating our youth.