LEAF/CAEFS NEWS RELEASE  Supreme Court Misses Opportunity to Ensure Law Protects Abused Women

January 18, 2013 (Ottawa) - The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in R.v. Ryan. CAEFS intervened in the case, in coalition with LEAF, to argue that battered women who take steps to use force against their abusers in order to save their and their children's lives, are entitled to criminal law defences. The Court has held that the defence of duress does not apply but has ordered a stay of proceedings. Thus Ms Ryan does not have to endure further prosecution. CAEFS-LEAF had argued that the law should reflect an understanding of the realities of the lives of abused women. In ordering a stay of proceedings, the court noted the "enormous toll" of the abuse Ms Ryan suffered:    "the abuse which she suffered at the hands of Mr. Ryan took an enormous toll on her, as, no doubt, have these protracted proceedings, extending over nearly five years, in which she was acquitted at trial and successfully resisted a Crown appeal in the Court of Appeal. There is also the disquieting fact that, on the record before us, it seems that the authorities were much quicker to intervene to protect Mr. Ryan than they had been to respond to her request for help in dealing with his reign of terror over her." Unfortunately, while the SCC says the case is exceptional, there is good reason to believe it is not. "Every six days a woman in Canada is killed by an intimate partner. Repeatedly those deaths have been tied to inaction or inappropriate action on the part of the criminal justice system. The Canadian government has unmet obligations under international law to show due diligence in protecting women from sexist violence." advised Lee Lakeman, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres (CASAC). "Women escaping abuse are entitled to defend against their attackers and the law must change to ensure that they are not criminalized for acting in their life threatening desperation", continued Ms Lakeman. While the stay ends the prosecution of one woman, unfortunately the Court's analysis of criminal defences does not hold out hope for the evolution of defences generally. The Court focuses on a doctrinal analysis and some clarification of defences, but does not address concerns that they fail to capture the diversity of human experiences to which they need to be applied. "The overall message I get from the decision is that of a wish for conceptual stability in the law of defences and a preference for constitutional challenge or legislative change over the evolution of the common law. This contrasts dramatically with the wish of CAEFS-LEAF for equality-driven evolution of the law of defences, to avoid the criminalization of women driven to resisting abuse," commented Christine Boyle Q.C., counsel for CAEFS-LEAF. Background Nicole Ryan, suffered a 15 year "reign of terror". Her account of abuse, fear and efforts to seek help was accepted by the trial court in Nova Scotia and her acquittal on a charge of counselling to commit murder was unanimously upheld by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal - she was sexually and physically assaulted, emotionally and psychologically abused, threatened repeatedly with a gun and told by her husband that if she ever left, he would "kill", "destroy" and "annihilate" Ms Ryan and their daughter. These threats were often morbidly graphic. Mr. Ryan threatened to burn their home down with Ms Ryan and their daughter in it and showed Ms Ryan the piece of land where he said he would dig a trench and bury them under a pile of gravel and garbage. Ms Ryan is a mere 5'3" and 115 pounds, to Mr. Ryan's 6'3" and 230 pounds. When Ms Ryan was finally able to leave, the evidence at trial was that even though Mr. Ryan lived a two-hour drive away, he showed up on the road to and from her place of work, and outside her sister's home where she was living. Ms Ryan contacted the police and victim services a dozen times, but according to the Court, her pleas for help "went unheeded". Isolated, terrified and without options, Ms Ryan sought protection. The charge of counselling came after she was approached by an undercover police officer, who posed as a hit-man. Jennifer Tomaszewski, speaking on behalf of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, said: "Violence against women remains a critical issue today. We remain committed to advocating on behalf of women and articulating the equality concerns raised in cases such as R.v.Ryan. We are concerned that, read in the context of the very recent decision in R.v.O'Brien, much work remains." Christine Boyle QC is counsel for CAEFS-LEAF. The CAEFS-LEAF factum can be downloaded at: http://leaf.ca/legal-issues-cases-and-law-reform/active-cases/ - 30 - For more information, please contact: Kim Pate - 613-298-2422 Christine Boyle - 604-738-0570 Kim Stanton - 416-595-7170 Lee Lakeman - 604-417-0028 ****************************************************************************** POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE La Cour suprême rate une occasion de mieux protéger les femmes victimes de violence Le 18 janvier 2013 (Ottawa) - La Cour suprême duCanada a rendu sa décision dans la cause R. c. Ryan. L'Association canadienne des sociétés Elizabeth Fry (ACSEF) et le Fonds d'action et d'éducation juridiques (FAEJ) sont intervenus ensemble dans ce dossier, plaidant que les femmes violentées par un conjoint qui tentent de recourir à la force pour sauver leur vie et celle de leurs enfants ont droit aux moyens de défense prévus en droit criminel. Le tribunal a déterminé que la défense de contrainte ne s'appliquait pas mais a ordonné une suspension des procédures. Par conséquent, Madame Ryan n'aura pas à subir une nouvelle poursuite. L'ACSEF et le FAEJ avaient plaidé que la loi devrait mieux refléter le vécu réel des femmes violentées par un conjoint. En ordonnant la suspension des procédures, la Cour a reconnu que Madame Ryan avait été «sérieusement affectée» par la violence qu'elle a subie: «En outre, Mme Ryan a été sérieusement affectée par les mauvais traitements que lui a infligés M. Ryan, ainsi que, nul doute, par ces interminables procédures, s'étirant sur presque cinq ans, et au cours desquelles elle a d'abord été acquittée en première instance avant de s'opposer avec succès à l'appel du ministère public en Cour d'appel. Il est aussi troublant de constater, à la lumière du dossier, que les autorités compétentes ont semblé démontrer un plus grand empressement à intervenir pour protéger M. Ryan qu'à réagir à la demande de Mme Ryan lorsqu'elle sollicitait leur aide pour mettre un terme au règne de terreur que lui imposait son époux.» Malheureusement, même si la CSC déclare que cette affaire est exceptionnelle, il existe de bonnes raisons de croire qu'il n'en est rien. «Tous les six jours, une femme est tuée au Canada par un partenaire intime. Ces assassinats sont souvent associés à l'absence ou à l'insuffisance de mesures appropriées du système de justice pénale pour défendre ces femmes. En n'exerçant pas la diligence nécessaire pour protéger les femmes contre la violence sexiste, le gouvernement canadien contrevient à ses obligations aux termes du droit international» constate Lee Lakeman, porte-parole de l'Association canadienne des centres contre les agressions à caractère sexuel (ACCCACS). «Les femmes qui fuient la violence ont le droit de se défendre contre leurs agresseurs, et la loi doit changer afin qu'elles ne soient pas criminalisées lorsqu'elles agissent en désespoir de sauver leur vie», ajoute Madame Lakeman. Si cette décision met fin à une poursuite intentée contre une femme, il est malheureux que l'analyse faite par la Cour suprême des moyens de défense inscrits au droit criminel ne présente pas beaucoup d'espoir pour leur évolution. Le jugement s'en tient à une analyse de la doctrine et à certaines clarifications des moyens de défense, mais n'aborde pas leurs lacunes à rendre compte de la diversité des expériences humaines auxquelles elles doivent s'appliquer. Selon Christine Boyle, conseillère de l'ACSEF et du FAEJ, «la décision me semble refléter, plutôt qu'un progrès de la common law, le souhait d'une stabilité conceptuelle du droit des défenses, ainsi qu'une préférence pour une contestation d'ordre constitutionnel et des réformes législatives. C'est une orientation tout à fait contraire au souhait de l'ACSEF et du FAEJ, qui prônent une évolution du droit relatif aux moyens de défense en vue de favoriser l'égalité, dans le but d'éviter la criminalisation des femmes forcées de se défendre contre la violence.» Nicole Ryan a subi 15 années d'un «règne de terreur». Son compte rendu des violences subies, de ses craintes et de ses efforts pour trouver de l'aide a été accepté par le tribunal de première instance, qui l'a acquittée de l'accusation d'avoir conseillé la perpétration d'un meurtre. La Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle-Écosse a par la suite maintenu à l'unanimité cet acquittement. Nicole Ryan a été victime d'agressions sexuelles et physiques, de violences émotionnelles et psychologiques et de menaces répétées avec une arme à feu. Son conjoint l'a également menacée à plusieurs reprises de les «tuer», «détruire» et «anéantir», elle et leur fille, si Madame Ryan le quittait. Ces menaces étaient souvent d'une précision morbide. M. Ryan a menacé de mettre le feu à leur maison pendant que Madame Ryan et leur fille s'y trouveraient et il lui a montré le terrain où il voulait creuser une tranchée pour les enterrer sous du gravier et des déchets. Madame Ryan mesure 5 pi 3 po et pèse 130 livres, alors que M. Ryan mesure 6 pi 3 po et pèse 230 livres. Lorsque Madame Ryan a enfin réussi à fuir, la preuve présentée au tribunal a révélé que, même s'il résidait à deux heures de route de chez elle, M. Ryan surgissait souvent sur le chemin la conduisant à son travail, et à l'extérieur de la maison de sa soeur où elle avait trouvé refuge. Madame Ryan a contacté la police et les services aux victimes une douzaine de fois, mais les tribunaux ont confirmé que ses appels à l'aide «étaient restés lettre morte». Isolée, terrifiée et dépourvue d'options, Madame Ryan a éventuellement cherché protection. L'accusation d'avoir conseillé de commettre un crime a été portée après sa rencontre avec un agent d'infiltration policier qui se faisait passer pour un tueur à gages. Selon Jennifer Tomaszewski, porte-parole du Fonds d'action et d'éducation juridiques, «la violence faite aux femmes demeure toujours un problème grave. Nous sommes plus que jamais engagées à plaider au nom des femmes et à faire valoir les enjeux d'égalité soulevés dans des causes comme R. c. Ryan. Dans le contexte de la très récente décision R. c. O'Brien, nous craignons qu'il reste encore beaucoup de travail à faire.» Christine Boyle, c.r., est conseillère de l'ACSEF et du FAEJ. Le factum de l'ACSEF-FAEJ est accessible au http://leaf.ca/legal-issues-cases-and-law-reform/active-cases/ - 30 - Pour plus d'information: Kim Pate - 613-298-2422 Christine Boyle - 604-738-0570 Kim Stanton - 416-595-7170

Equality work done in Africa

Executive Director and Founder of Equality Effect, Fiona Sampson was in Winnipeg to deliver one of the keynote address at LEAF Manitoba's 22nd Annual Person's Day Breakfast at the Convention centre.  Mary Eberts was the other keynote speaker. Both speakers were dynamic and substantial.
The equality effect uses human rights law to improve the lives of women and girls. Fiona originally conceived of the equality effect in 2005, in collaboration with friends and colleagues from Africa at the Osgoode Hall Law School graduate program.
Fiona shared some poignant stories of young girls being raped by the people who should be protecting them e.g. their family members and even the police. These stories are heart-wrenching. In 2012, women and girls must not be facing these horrors. The world needs to stop and take notice. We have to remove the wool of a life of comfort and extravagance and look beyond that to see and contribute to this struggle. None of us is free until we all are free said Harriet Tubman.

Mary Eberts is well known around the world for her groundbreaking work on behalf of women’s equality, Aboriginal rights, and the Charter.
She has practiced law for over 35 years, as a partner in a large firm, and the founder of her own small specialized litigation firm. In 2010, she was appointment Ariel F. Sallows Chair in Human Rights at
the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan.
In 1980, Mary was retained by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women to provide advice on the draft Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and became deeply involved in the improvement of the Charter’s guarantees of equality. She is a co-founder of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), and acted as counsel in some of its early cases.
Check out this website
 http://theequalityeffect.org

Bias Against Abused Mothers in Child Custody Cases - BC LEAF reportBias Against Abused Mothers in Child Custody Cases: Report
New study finds systemic problems in parental capacity assessments discriminate against women.
By Katie Hyslop, 24 July 2012, TheTyee.ca

View full article and comments: http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/07/24/Child-Custody-Report/

When a woman flees an abusive relationship, we expect the justice system will protect her and her children.
But a new report finds in some British Columbian child custody cases allegations of spousal abuse are used to paint the mother as mentally ill or an "alienating" parent, and instead recommend visitation, or even custody, for the abusive parent.
"Troubling Assessments: Custody and Access Reports and their Equality Implications for BC Women" - http://www.westcoastleaf.org/userfiles/file/Troubling%20Assessments%20e-report%202012.pdf - is a new report released today by West Coast LEAF, a women's legal education and advocacy organization. The report looks at what are known under the Family Relations Act as Section 15 reports: parental capacity assessments conducted during child custody and access cases.
Often a useful tool for getting a third-party, outsider's view of parenting abilities, the report found they could also be biased against and dangerous for vulnerable women with abusive ex-partners.
While there are specific guidelines to follow for family counsellors and social workers regarding family violence and the use of these reports, psychologists in B.C. have no such criteria. In addition, judges often take assessors' advice at face value, and limited access to legal aid in B.C. prevents many women from challenging assessments they view as biased.
"West Coast LEAF believes that women's equality is not served by the regime governing custody and access reports as it currently stands," reads the report. (...)

Hate speech is discrimination

LEAF intervening at SCC in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan

Prohibiting Religious Hate Speech is Constitutional.
Hate speech is more than mere expression. It is a form of discrimination.
 
October 11, 2011, Toronto - On Wednesday October 12, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear Whatcott v. Saskatchewan. LEAF is intervening in the appeal. The case involves a constitutional challenge to s.14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which prohibits the promotion of hatred against protected and vulnerable groups.
 
"Hate speech is a deeply harmful form of discrimination which not only harms the targeted group, it harms all of society" explains LEAF co-counsel Jo-Ann Kolmes. "Limits on hate speech against targeted groups, like gays and lesbians in this case, play a critical role in promoting an inclusive and tolerant Canadian society that respects equality of all our citizens."

Whatcott distributed homophobic leaflets to homes in Regina and Saskatoon. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that these flyers constituted hate speech. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that although the flyers may be "demeaning," "crude" and "harsh," they did not cross the line into expression which vilifies and degrades gays and lesbians and exposes them to hatred. The Supreme Court of Canada will consider whether the flyers constitute hate expression and whether the provision of the Code is constitutional.

"Twenty years ago, LEAF participated in the important and successful effort to establish that limitations to hate speech are constitutionally justified, culminating in the Supreme Court's decisions in the Keegstra and Taylor cases", says LEAF co-counsel and professor of law Kathleen Mahoney. "These limitations are now under attack, only this time, instead of Jews, the target of the hatred is gays and lesbians. LEAF argues that speech rights raised by Whatcott must be subject to the same equality principles Courts have applied to racial hatred. The Court cannot ignore the grievous injuries homophobic hate speech inflicts on sexual minorities."

Mahoney points out that society has long recognized that expression must be regulated in many ways, most of them invisible and now taken for granted.
 
"Journalists are prevented on a daily basis from reporting what could be relevant information by libel and contempt of court laws. Government servants are bound by oaths of lifelong secrecy. The Broadcasting Act sets limits on the content of programming on television and radio. The centuries-old law of defamation clearly limits harmful speech. Human rights statutes prohibit sexual and racial harassment, which often take the form of speech." Mahoney says the regulation of hate speech must be understood in this context, "Hate speech is much more than mere expression. In and of itself it is a form of discrimination. Sometimes it goes beyond discrimination to result in violence. The continuum between expression, discrimination and violence is undeniable."
 
LEAF's factum documents the unique ways in which women are harmed by hate speech.
 
"The portrayal of Aboriginal women as dispensable, run-away prostitutes or 'squaws' has been connected to violence against Aboriginal women, including disappearances and murders," says LEAF Legal Director Joanna Birenbaum. "Hate expression targeted at lesbians, women with disabilities, Muslim and racialized women, depicts and degrades them in specifically gendered, often-sexualized ways. Expressions of hate directed at women must be treated extremely seriously under human rights legislation such as the Saskatchewan statute, especially since women are excluded from the Criminal Code protections."

LEAF has a long history of equality analysis and advocacy with respect to the importance of statutory limitations on freedom of expression. LEAF intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada cases of R. v. Keegstra and Taylor v. The Canadian Human Rights Commission in 1990. In December 2009, LEAF made submissions to government on the importance of s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that also prohibits hate speech (which can be found on our website at
http://leaf.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Submission_to_JUST_Committee2009.pdf)
 
LEAF's factum in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan is available at http://leaf.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Factum_LEAF_Whatcott_Finale_Signed-copy.pdf


-30-
For more information, please contact:

Joanna Birenbaum
 (LEAF Legal Director)
 (Cell) 647-500-3005 - (Office) 416-595-7170 ext. 223 - (E-mail) j.birenbaum@leaf.ca
 
Kathleen Mahoney
 (Counsel)
(Cell) 403-837-1141
 
Jo-Ann Kolmes
(Counsel)
(Cell) 780-993-0839


LEAF is a national, non profit organization committed to confront all forms of discrimination through legal action, public education, and law reform to achieve equality for women and girls under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For more information, please visit us at http://www.leaf.ca/