Your search

This article criticises the government's rejection of proposals by the Prison Reform Trust that would have extended self-defence in householder cases to victims/survivors of domestic abuse. The authors argue that the Prison Reform Trust proposals should be enacted, and further supported by novel complementary reform of the option to retreat, and the exclusion of intoxicated mistaken belief in self-defence claims. Specifically, the authors advance a statutory rebuttable presumption regarding the option to retreat in cases involving domestic abuse, namely, an assumption that the victim/survivor was not realistically able to retreat safely, unless it is proven otherwise. The authors also examine the appropriateness of the policy decision to exclude intoxicated mistaken belief in all self-defence cases and advocate for its removal. It should be replaced with a requirement that all mistaken beliefs must be reasonable regardless of the presence of intoxication. Procedural recommendations are also advanced, including amendment of the Crown Court Compendium to include judicial directions on self-defence which adopt a social entrapment approach in domestic abuse cases, and supported by the admissibility of non-medical expert evidence on the nature and impact of coercive control.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has both serious consequences for its victims and high rates of recidivism. Risk assessment measures are an integral part of preventing IPV recidivism. The use of brief IPV-specific measures is particularly relevant in settings, such as corrections, where resources are limited. The RBAC-VPI is a 15-item IPV risk assessment designed as a supplement to general risk measures, making it efficient to use in various settings. Validity was tested in a sample of 222 men in the province of Quebec, Canada convicted of a violent offence where the victim was an intimate partner. Participants were evaluated using the RBAC-VPI, a general risk assessment (RBAC-PCQ), a standalone IPV risk assessment (SARA-V3), and a psychopathy assessment (PCL:SV). The RBAC-VPI showed acceptable reliability and very strong convergent validity with the other measures, most notably with the SARA-V3 (r = .51), while containing fewer items and being quicker to administer. A Rasch model item response theory analysis further supported the validity of the measure’s items. Items showed excellent model fit and a good difficulty distribution. Only two items were identified as redundant and one as less informative. This suggests that the RBAC-VPI is both brief and highly informative.

These essays illustrate the advantages of 'reflexive' tort scholarship by contrasting the reflexive scholarship of judicial analysis with grand theory, then applying reflexive scholarship to the tort of negligence. The final essay presents a wider argument about human responsibility and legal conduct.

Intimate partner violence [IPV] causes myriad and gendered harms, but Canadian law has inconsistently provided avenues of economic redress. Although tort law has evolved to allow IPV survivors to seek compensation, tort-based remedies are sought rarely and largely limited to intentional torts such as assault, battery, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. These torts do not always encompass the harms sustained by IPV survivors, particularly those caused by economic abuse and coercive control. In Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, a 2022 family law case, Justice Renu Mandhane responded to this gap in the law by recognizing a new tort of family violence, but her decision was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2023, and the case is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. Our paper provides a feminist analysis of the role of tort law in providing compensatory remedies for survivors of IPV. We situate tort remedies and Ahluwalia within the wider context of Canadian laws addressing IPV and feminist critiques of tort law and theory. This wider context raises issues about access to justice and socio-economic responses to IPV for members of marginalized groups in particular. We also examine how myths and stereotypes have influenced this area of law and the role of lawyers and judges in this respect, including in Ahluwalia. We conclude that recognition of the tort of family violence is an important but limited step forward in compensating the harms of IPV, and we urge governments to do more to systemically remediate these harms.

Drawing on cases, Stark identifies the problems with our current approach to domestic violence, outlines the components of coercive control, and then uses this alternate framework to analyse the cases of battered women charged with criminal offenses directed at their abusers.

Daniel Kim, 2025 83-1 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 55, 2025 CanLIIDocs 1328

Human rights movements and organizations all over the world cite the pursuit and preservation of dignity as one of their goals, but the legal implications of this term are highly contested. In Dignity and Judicial Authority, Rachel Bayefsky offers a theory of dignity that emphasizes respect for status, non-domination, and control over self-presentation to others. The book explains how US courts can recognize the loss of dignity as a legally actionable harm and provide remedies for this harm. In applying these ideas, the book explores a host of corresponding legal topics, including constitutional standing doctrine, the "dignitary torts," and court-mandated apologies. It demonstrates the connections between dignity and subjects such as jurisdiction and remedies, which help to delineate the bounds of judicial authority.

"Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand is the definitive guide to practice and procedure in the New Zealand House of Representatives. The fifth edition contains 60 chapters, incorporates developments since 2017, and provides an authoritative snapshot of parliamentary practice, law, and procedure as at early 2023. The new edition includes expanded and revised content on the operation of select committees, rearranged and updated material about the legislative process, substantial developments like the establishment of the Petitions Committee and other changes resulting from the Review of Standing Orders 2020, enactment of the Legislation Act 2019, and the COVID-19 pandemic"--Publisher information

"Since its first publication in 2000, this book has been an invaluable resource for members of Parliament, their staff and anyone wanting to understand how the House of Commons works. This latest edition reflects a time of tremendous change, showing that parliamentary procedure can evolve and adapt to new realities. . . It is only natural that, reflecting this period of procedural, physical and technological change, House of Commons Procedure and Practice should change as well. Just as Center Block is being carefully modernized while retaining its heritage character, this publication has become more convenient, user-friendly guide focused on current practice, all while maintaining the accuracy, depth and detail that have made previous editions so indispensable. Changes include new chapter summaries that offer clear and concise outlines of what a chapter includes, a reduced focus on historical practices, streamlined footnotes and new section numbers to help readers find information quickly."-- From introduction