Your search

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile is an annual report produced by the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics at Statistics Canada as part of the Federal Family Violence Initiative. Since 1998, this report has provided data on the nature and extent of family violence in Canada, as well as an analysis of trends over time. According to Justice Canada, a considerable amount of Canadian resources are directed to address this issue including health care costs, costs to the justice system, to employers and businesses, and to social and community services (Justice Canada 2017). Text box 1 Police-reported crime and calls for service during the COVID-19 pandemic In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics at Statistics Canada began collecting monthly data from police services to track information on selected types of Criminal Code violations during the pandemic. Inversely, as individuals spent more time at home with family during the pandemic-while working from home and participating in virtual learning-heightened stress due to social isolation, economic uncertainty and increased substance use, among others, could lead to an increase in family violence (Campbell 2020; Usher et al. 2020).

Larticle 52 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 «rend inoperantes les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre regle de droit». Deux visions diamétralement opposees concernant les effets juridiques des declarations dinvalidite prononcees en vertu de cette disposition se sont recemment affrontees. Selon la premiere approche, les declarations dinvalidite constituent des jugements in rem. Sous reserve dun appel, la declaration simpose au corpus legislatif, efface de fait la disposition en question et est opposable a tous. Selon la seconde approche, les effets dune declaration dinvalidite est regie par la regle habituelle de la stare decisis. Si lon ne doit pas prendre les decisions du meme ordre de juridiction a la legere, celles-ci nen sont pas pour autant formellement contraignantes. Dans cet article, ¡'auteur fait valoir que la theorie de la non-conformite soustendant le controle judiciaire des lois constitue un fondement permettant de conclure que les declarations d'invalidite sont similaires a d'autres decisions portant sur une loi. En vertu de cette theorie, le controle judiciaire d'une loi constitue une tache habituelle des tribunaux qui consiste a resoudre une incoherence entre des textes legislatifs. La Cour supreme a laisse entendre que sa doctrine portant sur les declarations formelles d'invalidite etait porteuse de consequences radicales. Il est difficile de concilier ces consequences avec Revolution historique du controle judiciaire au Canada ou le texte et la structure de la Constitution. La theorie de la non-conformite propose que les regles applicables aux effets juridiques des decisions portant sur les questions de droit devraient s'appliquer aux decisions portant sur un controle judiciaire : la regle habituelle de la stare decisis s'applique. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that any law inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Two opposing views on the legal effects of declarations of invalidity made under this provision have recently come into conflict. On the first view, declarations of invalidity are judgments in rem. Subject to an appeal a declaration binds the statute book, effectively erases the offending provision and is opposable to all. On the second view, the effects of a declaration of invalidity is governed by the ordinary rules of stare decisis. Coordinate decisions are not to be departed from lightly, but are not strictly binding. This article argues that the repugnancy theory of judicial review of legislation supports the conclusion that declarations of invalidity are similar to other determinations of law. Under this theory, the judicial review of legislation is an ordinary judicial task consisting in the resolution of a conflict between legal authorities. The Supreme Court has suggested radical consequences under its doctrine of formal declarations of invalidity. Those consequences are difficult to reconcile with the history of judicial review in Canada or the text and structure of the Constitution. The repugnancy theory suggests that the rules governing the legal effects of determinations of questions of law should govern determinations on judicial review: the ordinary rules of stare decisis govern.

This article proposes a new interpretation of section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It argues that the legal effect of this provision depends on the type of unconstitutionality at issue. On the one hand, subsection 52(1) governs substantive conflicts between constitutional and legislative norms by rendering inoperative legislation that is incompatible with the supreme law. On the other hand, subsection 52(3) requires the observance of the procedural rules prescribed by the Constitution. Legislative measures that contravene this procedural criterion are ultra vires and, as a result, invalid. This article further attempts to clarify the effects of declarations of unconstitutionality on third parties as well as their temporal operation. It contends that declaratory judgments of unconstitutionality are in rem in nature. Such declarations bind parties to the litigation and third parties alike by virtue of the principle of res judicata, subject to rare exceptions. The general scope of declarations of unconstitutionality allows courts to adjust the temporal operation of the law deemed unconstitutional, notably to maintain the security and stability of legal relationships.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

The purpose of this study was to investigate nonconsensual condom removal (NCCR), also termed “stealthing,” which involves a male partner removing a condom during sex without knowledge or consent. Young women (N = 364) provided self-report data on sociodemographic characteristics, NCCR experiences, and sexual self-perceptions. Almost 10% of the participants reported experiencing NCCR, with increased risk linked to nonheterosexuality, nonexclusive relationship status, and more sexual partners. Women with NCCR histories reported less confidence to refuse unwanted sexual advances and felt less in control of themselves as sexual beings. Together, the findings suggested NCCR is a somewhat common sexual risk behavior which may pose acute and sustained psychosexual harm to victims.

Reproductive coercion (RC) is a form of violence perpetuated against women. It occurs when male partners adopt behaviors meant to control a woman’s birth control or pregnancy despite her wishes. This amounts to interference with a woman’s autonomy in reproductive decisions. The three main forms of RC are birth control sabotage (including nonconsensual condom removal), pregnancy coercion, and controlling the outcome of a pregnancy. This qualitative exploratory study examines issues in the acknowledgment of RC. Participants were 21 young women in Québec (Canada), who had experienced this form of violence. Results of individual semi-directed interviews reveal that RC can be difficult to acknowledge. A thematic analysis demonstrates that awareness is modulated by the manifestations of RC and by the emotional bond with the perpetrator. Acknowledgment of RC behavior varies according to the form that is experienced: Nonconsensual condom removal is the most readily identified, whereas acknowledgment of pregnancy pressure and pregnancy coercion takes longer, requiring repeated incidents before it is identified as a form of violence. In addition, acknowledgment is facilitated when relationships are casual and uncommitted compared with romantic and committed. Moreover, reading about the issue, confiding in a friend or acquaintance, and finding a new partner who respects one’s reproductive rights facilitate RC acknowledgment. In contrast, not self-identifying as a victim, assuming responsibility for the incident, having a limited understanding of sexual violence, and experiencing other forms of violence with an intimate partner contribute to impede RC acknowledgment. Results are discussed in terms of practical implications for young adults and health care professionals.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Heidi Esslinger, 2021 19 Annual Review of Insolvency Law, 2021 CanLIIDocs 13565

<p>In the wake of the global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a rise in creditorinitiated winding-up proceedings is likely to be impending in coming years (See e.g., RCMA Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Sun Electric Power Pte. Ltd. [2020] SGHC 205). At the same time, geopolitical developments, such as the scale and ambition of Belt &amp; Road Initiative projects, have raised questions over the issue of debt sustainability. Given the prevalence of arbitration clauses in modern international commercial and project agreements, the interplay and relationship between insolvency and dispute resolution, and especially arbitration, requires careful attention. While the intersections between the arbitration and insolvency regimes are numerous and multi-faceted, (Jennifer Permesly et al. ‘IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration’ International Bar Association (March 2021), www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/ Arbitration/toolkit-arbitration-insolvency.aspx (accessed 18 April 2021) the impact of an arbitration clause on winding-up petitions has attracted recent case law. The English, Hong Kong, and Singapore courts have each taken differing approaches to the question of how to deal with winding-up petitions presented over disputed debts that are subject to an arbitration clause. On one end of the spectrum, the Hong Kong courts currently appear to prefer a relatively more creditor-friendly approach. On the other hand, the Singapore Court of Appeal recently laid down a relatively more debtor-friendly approach. Undertaking a comparative analysis of the approaches taken by different common law jurisdiction, this article argues that the Singapore Court of Appeal’s approach is preferable. However, at least for courts in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law jurisdictions (or jurisdictions where the mandatory stay regime of the Model Law is adopted), they ought to find that a disputed debt subject to an arbitration clause falls within the scope of the mandatory stay regime under the Model Law. This article further suggests a possible way in which the approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal can be reconciled with the mandatory stay regime under Singapore’s enactment of the Model Law.<br></p>

Rendered in December 2019, the Vavilov decision sets the contemporary analytical framework for the judicial review of an administrative decision on the merits. On this occasion, the Supreme Court expressed the desire to add a certain degree of certainty and consistency to this field of law. This article focuses on the new approach’s propensity to achieve that goal. The analysis begins with the observation that there exists a connection between the instability that has historically characterized the law of judicial review and the failure of previous approaches to adequately guide reviewing courts in the fulfillment of their mission, which consists of balancing the rule of law and legislative supremacy. In light of earlier case law, the author concludes that the Vavilov decision offers the prospect of greater certainty in determining the applicable standard of review, but that the risk of instability remains with respect to the application of the reasonableness standard. Indeed, while the Supreme Court’s guidance in this regard generally reflects a concern to alleviate the tension underlying the relationship between rule of law and legislative supremacy principles, some of the majority justices’ assertions, namely that certain statutory provisions “relating to the scope of a decision maker’s authority” may involve only one interpretation, may weaken the self-discipline of reviewing courts on which judicial deference is based.