SoVote

Context: Committee Evidence - FEWO-86 (FEWO) - Nov/20/23

Mr. Philip Viater (Lawyer, As an Individual)

04:57:06 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you for having me here. Senator Boisvenu, thank you for bringing forward this bill. For those who don't know me, I am a lawyer. I practise predominantly family law, with some criminal law, and I've been doing that for about 15 years. I bring a bit of a unique element to my experience because, as was alluded to before, I am the stepfather of Keira Kagan, who was involved in a murder-suicide that ended up resulting in Keira's law being passed through Bill C-233, along with provisions for ankle monitoring. When I reviewed this bill, I was quite optimistic. Because of my unique experience as both a survivor of domestic violence through my stepdaughter and a lawyer who deals with a lot of victims of domestic violence as part of my work, people from all across Canada reach out to me quite regularly—and I mean literally every province and territory—and I hear all the stories, in addition to my own practice. I think this bill is quite important to implement. As a matter of first priorities, a lot of people have trouble coming forward. They fear they may be disbelieved and, even worse, they fear that if they are disbelieved and no charges are laid, they may get it even worse once their intimate partner finds out that they have gone to a police officer to make a complaint. The stakes can be quite high. What we also find is that, once a police officer does agree or finds grounds to lay a charge, victims oftentimes feel silenced. They feel that they don't have much control over the process and that things are just done without their input. One of the very first provisions that struck me was something so easy and something that should be done regularly, which is to get the victim's input on their safety and security needs. That could be done so easily in the stages where the police officer takes their statement. They could, just at the very end, ask about their security and safety needs. They could be taken through victim witness services. It is a really easy thing to do, and it's really important. By way of a very quick example, I was involved in a case where the husband was charged—they were pretty bad charges—and, of course, we had the regular no-contact provisions. They didn't consult with the wife on this one, and the unique aspect of this particular case, for example, was that these people were very religious and went to their temple a lot—multiple times per week. Police didn't know this and the Crown didn't know this, because nobody had asked the wife. What the husband was doing was going to that temple a lot more than usual in the hopes of continuing to see the wife. Now, when the wife reported this to the police, the husband had plausible deniability—“I'm here just to go to my temple”—even though he was going at times and on dates so much more often than he used to go. That became a problem, because nothing was really getting enforced. At a minimum, it could have been considered. Similarly, even informing people of the conditions to get the order—it's part of this bill—is really important, because most victims don't even know that. If they don't have a lawyer, sometimes they don't even receive it. Finally, I want to talk about the peace bond process, because it is really important and is really well done, in my opinion, in what this bill accomplishes. First of all, a peace bond is a separate process to a criminal proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, you have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for there to be a conviction. With a peace bond proceeding, number one, the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities—just what is more likely than not—and, number two, the other key difference is that somebody could lay a peace bond information just based on having reasonable grounds for fear for their safety or of violence, which is a really important distinction. A criminal offence does not even have to have taken place, but if intuitively a victim knows that something bad may happen, they could lay an information. In addition, and what is also really important and is perhaps an unintended consequence, because the courts are really concerned with unreasonable delay due to the charter, and because the criminal burden is so high, oftentimes prosecutors make deals. Right now, they're very limited in terms of the deals they can make when there's a peace bond, but Senator Boisvenu's bill has provided them further opportunity to make a much better resolution, which would still, hopefully, protect the victim, if they really need to go that route.

838 words

C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)

Context: Committee Evidence - FEWO-86 (FEWO) - Nov/20/23

Mr. Philip Viater

05:04:09 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I think it's really valuable. At an absolute minimum, just providing their input and making them feel more involved will give them a better sense of security. In addition, as I alluded to, even the peace bond provisions giving a greater breadth of the remedies available to them can assist. I think this is a very big, positive step, quite frankly.

62 words

Context: Committee Evidence - FEWO-86 (FEWO) - Nov/20/23

Mr. Philip Viater

05:17:28 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. My comments mostly deal with the new 810 section, otherwise known as the peace bond provisions, because what Senator Boisvenu has done is very clever. He's created a two-tiered 810 system, in a way. We already have an 810 system, but that 810 system is somewhat limited. For example, they could give up to 12 months, and it's not really geared toward intimate partner violence. In Senator Boisvenu's bill, he has a separate system where, first, it goes before a provincial court judge. In the current 810 system, it actually goes before a justice. It could be a criminal court judge, but it could also be a justice of the peace. In addition, he's lengthened the restraining order provisions to now be two years, and perhaps even three years if there's a previous record. In the old version, when it doesn't deal with intimate partner violence, that doesn't exist. He's also increased, if you breach, the penalty to up to two years, whereas in the old one it's one year. It's a really good two-tiered system that recognizes intimate partner violence. Even the fact that it's here gives more publicity to the fact that this is an epidemic and it has to be taken seriously. It goes hand in hand with Keira's law, both federally and provincially. As judges hopefully get and implement that training, they'll be in a better position to know what the conditions are that we should impose, including that treatment program for domestic violence and including even the ankle monitoring.

271 words