When it comes to the topic of gender-based violence, there’s more often bad news than good. Rates of violence, including femicide, remain high. Funding for frontline services is too little and insecure. Meaningful law reform is often too little too late. My list could go on.
But it’s not always all bad, and right now, there are some good news stories. Here are three of them.
First, Ontario’s Domestic Violence Death Review Committee released its 2022-2023 annual report late last year. It contained 66 recommendations for systemic change. These recommendations are sent to the bodies that have the power to implement them. Often, that’s the last we – the Committee members – hear of them. The public may never even know a report has been released, let alone what recommendations it contains.
One recommendation in the most recent report was directed to the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. In January, the College shared information with its members about the review and reminded them of their professional obligations to ensure that risk assessment tools are being used in all situations involving intimate partner violence. Further, the College provided the full DVDRC Report to all its members, and the eBulletin includes the competence and integrity sections of the profession’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice as a reminder to its members. The communication also provides links to resources and training opportunities.
This is a big step to recommendations receiving the attention they deserve. Congratulations and thank you to the College!
Taking it to the . . . zoom
Second, on Wednesday February 11 at 7:00 p.m., NDP MPPs Kristyn Wong Tam and Alexa Gilmour are hosting Talk Back: A Virtual Town Hall About Intimate Partner Violence in Ontario. Expert panelists, including Erin Lee, Marlee Liss and others – me among them — will kick off the province-wide zoom discussion about what we need to do to end intimate partner violence in Ontario. There’s been a lot of talk, and now it’s time for some action.
This important conversation is happening this week, and you can register – it’s free – at kristynwongtam.ca/talkback
When the law does the right thing
My final good news story for now is about a legal decision. Denise Brown and her husband had lived in a rental unit in Etobicoke since 2012. Only her husband’s name was on the lease. Over time, they had two children. In 2023, her husband was removed from the unit by the police because of domestic violence. Five months later, he gave the landlord notice to terminate his tenancy.
Upon receiving this notice, the landlord prepared to evict Denise and her children, even though she had occupied the unit for more than 10 years and had paid the rent after her husband’s departure. Denise learned that, in the eyes of the landlord, she was a mere occupant of the rental unit, and not a tenant. She was told — just days before the eviction date — that she could apply for tenancy, but it would be at market rent, which was double the amount she had been paying.
She then filed a motion to set aside the order, with her husband’s cooperation – in fact, he told the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that he hadn’t realized his notice would affect Denise’s status as a tenant.
Initially, the LTB agreed that Denise was a tenant, not an occupant, and set aside the eviction order. The landlord appealed, and the next adjudicator sided with them. Denise appealed, and a third adjudicator dismissed her appeal, so she took it to court.
The first was that there was no error in the first adjudicator’s decision sufficient to warrant an appeal by the landlord. It was a reasonable decision, given that Denise had paid rent, lived in the unit for an extended time, made repair requests, generally communicated with the landlord and was even identified as a tenant on one of the landlord’s documents.
Second, and more important in terms of the broader implications for other women who may find themselves in this situation, the court found that the Residential Tenancies Act expressly made Denise a tenant when her husband vacated the rental unit.
The decision also noted:
“The only prejudice the landlord has suffered by having Ms Browne remain in the unit is the loss of the opportunity to double the rent that it receives for the unit. . . This is not the kind of prejudice that the drafters of the regulation were concerned about alleviating.”
The landlord was ordered to pay Denise’s costs of approximately $3,800.
Lack of affordable housing is one of the biggest barriers for women leaving abusive partners. Because of this decision, a woman who has affordable housing, even if the lease is in her husband’s name, should be able to remain where she is if he is removed from it because of his actions.
Let’s take a moment to celebrate these three important and positive stories and build our energy for the challenges that lie ahead in our work to eradicate gender-based violence.