THE EFFECT OF PROTECTION ORDERS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIMS PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

By

Preetpal Kaur Basanti
Bachelor of Arts, Major in Psychology, Minor in Criminology
June 2007
University of the Fraser Valley

GRADUATE THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

In the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

© Preetpal Kaur Basanti
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
Winter 2017

All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

Approval
Name:
Degree:
Title:

Preetpal Kaur Basanti
Master of Arts (Criminal Justice) Degree
The Effect of Protection Orders on Domestic Violence
Victims Perceptions of Safety

Examining Committee
Dr. Irwin Cohen
GPC Chair
Senior Research Chair, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of the Fraser Valley

Dr. Amanda McCormick
Senior Supervisor
Associate Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of the Fraser Valley

Dr. Amy Prevost
Secondary Supervisor
Director, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of the Fraser Valley

Dr. Alexandra Lysova
External Examiner
Assistant Professor, School of Criminology
Simon Fraser University

Date Defended/Approved:

April 25, 2017

ii

University of the Fraser Valley
Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence

I, Preetpal Basanti, whose copyright is declared on The Effect of Protection Orders on
Domestic Violence Victims Perceptions of Safety, has granted the University of the Fraser
Valley the right to lend my graduate thesis to users of the University of the Fraser Valley
Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in the response to a
request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own
behalf or for one of its users.
I further grant permission to the University of the Fraser Valley to keep or make a digital
copy for use in its circulating collection, and, without changing the content, to translate the
graduate thesis, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose or
preservation of the digital work.
I have further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this graduate thesis for
scholarly purposes may be granted by either me or by the Associate Vice-President,
Research, Engagement and Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this graduate thesis for financial gain shall
not be allowed without my written permission.
Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any
multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by me. This
information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the
signed Partial Copyright Licence.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by me, may be
found at the University of the Fraser Valley Library.

University of the Fraser Valley
Abbotsford, B.C.

iii

Abstract
Domestic violence is a pervasive issue that affects people from all walks of life. In recent
years there have been numerous initiatives in British Columbia, Canada designed to
address and prevent domestic violence, including civil protection orders. This study
examined domestic violence victim’s perception of safety, among other facets, as afforded
by civil protection orders through an online survey and in-depth telephone interviews.
Service providers, who were knowledgeable about domestic violence, also participated in
telephone interviews to provide their perspective on the ability of civil protection orders to
promote victim safety and to reduce recidivism. The findings suggest a need for more
public awareness of civil protection orders, greater support in the application process, more
enforcement or increased police and/or RCMP presence when orders are violated, and
clarification for victims about implementing additional safety measures.

iv

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank all the women who took the time to complete the online survey and
I would especially like to thank the women who had the courage to participate in the
telephone interviews. A special thank you goes to my cohort colleagues Howard Chow and
Doug LePard who provided their assistance. To all the service providers I wish to say a
sincere thank you for taking the time to participate in the study and to provide their
valuable insight on protection orders. I would also like to thank Louis Liew, my Team
Leader, at the Ministry of Children and Family Development for being so accommodating
of my continuing education. Finally, I am expressly grateful to Dr. Amanda McCormick
and Dr. Amy Prevost for all the assistance, guidance, support, and words of encouragement
they offered me in completing this study.

v

Dedication
To my wonderful parents, Jasraj Singh and Darshan Kaur Basanti, for not only
supporting me in this chapter of my life but for always offering me their guidance and
advice throughout my life. I wish to acknowledge my Dad, Jasraj Singh Basanti, who
always encourages me to pursue my dreams no matter how big or small and to continue to
challenge myself in every aspect of my life, thanks Dad!

vi

Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2.0 Background ...................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Domestic Violence Explained ....................................................................................... 4
2.2 Causes of Domestic Violence ..................................................................................... 10
2.3 Theories of Domestic Violence ................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3.0 Prevalence and Characteristics of Domestic Violence .................................. 15
3.1 Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Canada .............................................................. 15
3.2 Prevalence of Domestic Violence in British Columbia .............................................. 18
3.3 The Justice System’s Response to Domestic Violence Issues .................................... 20
3.4 B.C.’s Response to Domestic Violence Issues ............................................................ 26
Chapter 4.0 Civil Protection Orders and Criminal Orders with No Contact Conditions .. 32
4.1 Differences Between Civil Protection Orders and Criminal Orders with No Contact
Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Protection Orders......................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Criminal Orders with No Contact Conditions ............................................................. 36
4.4 Rate at Which Criminal Orders with No Contact Conditions are Issued .................... 36
4.5 Recidivism Rates for Offenders on Criminal Orders with No Contact Conditions .... 37
4.6 The Rate at Which Civil Protection Orders are Issued ............................................... 38
4.7 Recidivism Rates for Subjects on Civil Protection Orders ......................................... 39
4.8 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Civil Protection Orders ......................... 40
Chapter 5.0 Civil Protection Orders in Canadian Provinces and Territories .................... 42
5.1 Alberta ......................................................................................................................... 43
5.2 Saskatchewan .............................................................................................................. 46
5.3 Manitoba...................................................................................................................... 47
5.4 Ontario ......................................................................................................................... 48
5.6 New Brunswick ........................................................................................................... 49
5.7 Nova Scotia ................................................................................................................. 49
5.8 Prince Edward Island .................................................................................................. 50
5.9 Newfoundland and Labrador ....................................................................................... 51
5.9.1 Yukon ....................................................................................................................... 52
5.9.2 Northwest Territories ............................................................................................... 53
5.9.3 Nunavut .................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 6.0 Canadian and American Civil Protection Order Studies ............................... 56
6.1 Theoretical Framework’s Supporting Civil Protection Orders ................................... 68
Chapter 7.0 The Current Study ......................................................................................... 72
7.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 72
7.2 Research Ethics and Informed Consent ...................................................................... 77
Chapter 8.0 Results ........................................................................................................... 78
vii

8.1 Sample Description ..................................................................................................... 78
8.2 Domestic Violence Experiences.................................................................................. 83
8.3 Use of and Perceptions of Civil Protection Orders ..................................................... 85
8.4 Perceptions of Safety and Quality of Life Afforded by Civil Protection Orders ........ 87
8.5 Violations of Civil Protective Orders and Police and/or RCMP Response ................ 90
8.6 Perceptions of Safety and Quality of Life Post-Civil Protection Order Expiry .......... 92
8.7 Satisfaction with the Civil Protection Order Process .................................................. 94
8.8 Perceptions of Women Without Civil Protection Orders ............................................ 95
8.9 Telephone Interviews with Women Affected by Domestic Violence......................... 97
8.9.1 Telephone Interviews with Service Providers ........................................................ 103
Chapter 9.0 Discussion .................................................................................................... 108
Chapter 10.0 Recommendations and Policy Implications .............................................. 114
10.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 114
10.2 Research Limitations ............................................................................................... 117
10.3 Social and Criminal Justice Policy Implications ..................................................... 118
10.4 Directions for Future Research ............................................................................... 121
Chapter 11.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 122
References ....................................................................................................................... 123
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 138

viii

List of Tables
Table 1: Demographics and Previous Application for a Protective Order ........................ 86
Table 2: Paired t-Test Comparing Perceptions of Safety and Quality of Life Before and
During a Protective Order (n=16) ..................................................................................... 89

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1: Ethnic Composition of BC (n=34) and non-BC (n=10) sub-samples ............... 79
Figure 2: Current Marital Status of B.C. (n=34) versus non-B.C. (n=10) participants .... 80
Figure 3: Education Levels of B.C. (n=34) versus non-B.C. (n=10) participants ............ 81
Figure 4: Current Employment Status of B.C. (n=33) versus non-B.C. (n=10) participants
........................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 5: Annual Personal Total Income of B.C. (n=33) versus non-B.C. (n=9) participants
........................................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 6: Reasons for Not Applying for a Protection Order Previously (n=25) ............... 96
Figure 7: Factors Increasing the Likelihood of Applying for a Protection Order in the
Future (n=18)..................................................................................................................... 97

x

Chapter 1.0 Introduction
Domestic violence is an endemic issue that has devastating consequences for
victims, children who witness the abuse, and for society as a whole. According to the
World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2005 multi-country study on women’s health and
domestic violence against women, between 13% and 61% of women aged 15-49 years
old reported that an intimate partner physically abused them at least once in their lifetime,
between 6% and 59% of women reported forced or attempted forced sexual intercourse
by an intimate partner, and between 1% and 28% of women reported that they were
physically abused during pregnancy by an intimate partner (World Health Organization,
2013). There are such wide variances in the ranges of reporting because the countries
where the study was conducted, Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, Japan, Peru, Namibia,
Samoa, Serbia, Montenegro, Thailand, and the United Republic of Tanzania, there is still
a lot of stigma attached to women disclosing the abuse they suffer (World Health
Organization, 2010).
This study focuses exclusively on women victims of domestic violence as it has
been documented that women are more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse or
experience more severe or controlling domestic violence (Ansara & Hindin, 2011;
Burczycka, 2016; Burczycka & Conroy, 2017; Statistics Canada, 2016). It should be
noted that men are also victims of domestic violence but they do not report the violence
to police or to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) as much as women, making
it appear as if women are more likely to be victims, which is not the case (Burczycka,
2016; Burczycka & Conroy, 2017; Statistics Canada, 2016). In Canada in 2015, there

1

were approximately 72,000 police-reported female victims of domestic violence and
19,000 police-reported male victims of domestic violence (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017).
Domestic violence occurs in all socioeconomic (SES), cultural, religious, and
ethnic groups (British Columbia, 2010B). There are certain characteristics of domestic
violence that set it apart from other crimes, including the relationship to the victim, the
likelihood of recidivism is high given the often continuing relationship, and the
interactions between the justice system and the victim are typically more complex than
that of other crimes (Plecas, Segger, & Marsland, 2000). Theories and causes of domestic
violence are varied but there is some consensus that it reflects a power imbalance within
the relationship, and so it is often difficult for the victim to leave due to a host of reasons
including, but not limited to, fear and isolation, cultural or religious values, SES
circumstances, dependent children, or denial of the violence (British Columbia, 2010A;
Loue, 2001; Mears, Carlson, Holden, & Harris, 2001; Neilson, 2015; Plecas et al., 2000).
The criminal justice system has been improving their approach to domestic
violence and over recent years a wide variety of policies and programs have been
implemented, including mandatory or pro-arrest policies, pro-prosecution policies of
Crown Counsel, specialized police and RCMP domestic violence units, and specialized
domestic violence courts. The legal response to domestic violence has also been
broadened, and of particular importance to this study, a variety of protective orders are
now available to victims.
In British Columbia (B.C.) there are two main types of protection orders that
afford domestic violence victims, and sometimes their children, protection from their
partner or former partner, who is the subject of the protection orders. These orders

2

include civil protection orders and criminal orders with a condition that the subject not
contact the victim or other named individuals (British Columbia, 2013). The subject must
adhere to conditions on these legal orders and if he does not, he faces serious criminal
consequences including but not limited to a custodial sentence (British Columbia, 2013).
Although some of these orders have been in effect in Canada since the 1980s there has
been limited research into the orders ability to protect victims and even scarcer research
on the victim’s perception of safety as afforded by these orders.
The current study uses an exploratory and descriptive research design to highlight
domestic violence victim’s as well as service providers, who are knowledgeable about
domestic violence and who have assisted victims in obtaining either civil or criminal
protection orders, perceptions of civil protection orders. The study examines perceptions
of safety as provided by civil protection orders and any challenges or benefits participants
perceive with the current system.
The goal of the current study is to advance the limited knowledge on civil
protection orders in Canada. This is achieved through an online survey with women
affected by domestic violence and in-depth telephone interviews with both women
affected by domestic violence and service providers. The main research questions focus
on domestic violence victims perception of safety and well-being after the issuance of a
civil protection order, any challenges associated with the application process, experiences
when the subject violates or breaches conditions on the civil protection order, police
and/or RCMP’s response to these violations, any changes the women believe would be
useful to the civil protection order system, and how the women felt that the civil
protection orders worked overall for their unique situations. The research questions

3

relating to the service providers focus on the service provider’s perspective of the
effectiveness of civil and criminal protection orders, experience with the Protection Order
Registry, and any challenges or recommendations to improve the current system.
This thesis includes eleven chapters: Chapter 2.0 provides background
information on the issue of domestic violence, in B.C. and in Canada, and explores
theories and causes of domestic violence. Chapter 3.0 discusses the prevalence and
characteristics of domestic violence in B.C. and in Canada, and outlines the criminal
justice system’s approach to the issue. Chapter 4.0 outlines protection orders and their
prevalence in B.C. Chapter 5.0 highlights Canadian provinces and territories approach to
civil protection orders. Chapter 6.0 reviews some of the research on protection orders in
Canada and the United States and examines some of the theories that support the use of
civil protection orders. Chapter 7.0 introduces the methodological approach adopted in
this study. Chapter 8.0 analyses the online survey responses as well as the interviews
conducted with victims of domestic violence and service providers. Chapter 9.0 is the
discussion. Chapter 10.0 offers recommendations, explores policy implications, research
limitations, and directions for future research. Chapter 11.0 is the conclusion.

Chapter 2.0 Background
2.1 Domestic Violence Explained
Domestic violence has been referred to by many other names with similar
meanings including spousal violence/abuse, wife assault, violence against women in
relationships, relationship violence, intimate partner violence, or family violence, and
some studies have referred to female victims as battered women (British Columbia,
2016). The definition of domestic violence varies, and includes a range of physical and
4

sexual assaults, the threat of physical and sexual assaults, criminal harassment, threats,
mischief, emotional or verbal abuse, and/or financial abuse (Beaupre, 2015; British
Columbia, 2010B; British Columbia, 2015; British Columbia 2016; Burczycka, 2016;
Burczycka & Conroy, 2017; Ministry of Justice, 2016A).
For the purposes of this study domestic violence is defined as physical, emotional,
sexual, or financial abuse committed by an intimate partner. An intimate partner is
described as a partner with whom another person was involved in a physical, sexual, and
emotional relationship, regardless of marital or living status, at the time of the domestic
violence (Ministry of Justice, 2016A).
Domestic violence is significantly different from other types of offences as the
offender knows the victim, the two have a complicated relationship, there is a likelihood
of repeat violence, and interactions between the justice system and the victim are
complex (British Columbia, 2010B; Plecas et al., 2000). Domestic violence has been
described as a power-based crime and this dynamic makes this crime particularly
dangerous for the victim, as well as challenging for the justice system, as often the victim
fears court proceedings, which can lead to a retraction of her initial report (British
Columbia, 2010A; British Columbia, 2010B; Plecas et al., 2000). Domestic violence can
also be described as coercive and controlling violence where one partner terrorizes the
other to maintain power and control through violent and non-violent means, where each
incident of violence adds to the harmful effects of an earlier incident in an everincreasing destructive manner (British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016).
Domestic violence occurs in all ethnic, cultural, and religious groups, as well as
within all income levels, age groups, and across all communities in Canada (British

5

Columbia, 2016; British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016; Burczycka, 2016;
Burczycka & Conroy, 2017; Plecas et al., 2000; Statistics Canada, 2016). While women
are more at risk of domestic violence than men, research shows that some groups of
women are at greater risk of violence than others (Brennan, 2011; British Columbia,
2015; British Columbia, 2016; British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016; Burczycka,
2016; Disability Alliance BC, 2016; Sinha, 2013; Statistics Canada, 2015; Statistics
Canada, 2016). For example, due to a complex set of factors, including the
intergenerational impacts of residential schools, Aboriginal women are three times as
likely as non-Aboriginal women to be victims of domestic violence and they are
significantly more likely to experience the most severe, potentially life threatening levels
of violence (Brennan, 2011; British Columbia, 2015; British Columbia, 2016; Burczycka,
2016; Sinha, 2013; Statistics Canada, 2015; Statistics Canada, 2016).
In 2009, close to 67,000 Aboriginal women aged 15 years or older living in the
Canadian provinces reported being the victim of violence in the previous 12 months
(Brennan, 2011). Overall, the rate of self-reported violent victimization among
Aboriginal women was almost three times higher than the rate of violent victimization
reported by non-Aboriginal women (Brennan, 2011). Of the Aboriginal women who
reported that they had a current or former spouse, 15% reported being a victim of
domestic violence in the five years preceding the survey, as compared with 6% of nonAboriginal women (Brennan, 2011). Moreover, close to 59% of Aboriginal women who
experienced domestic violence in the five years preceding the survey said that they had
been injured compared to 41% of non-Aboriginal women, which could be due to the fact
that 48% of Aboriginal women reported the most severe forms of violence such as being

6

sexually assaulted, beaten, choked, or threatened with a gun or a knife (Brennan, 2011).
Furthermore, over 52% of Aboriginal women who were victimized by a current or former
partner stated that they feared for their lives, compared to 31% of non-Aboriginal
women, and a third (34%) of Aboriginal women also stated that a current or former
partner had been emotionally or financially abusive towards them in the five years
preceding the survey, as compared to less than a fifth (17%) of non-Aboriginal women
(Brennan, 2011).
In addition to the heightened risk faced by Indigenous populations, immigrant,
refugee, and visible minority women may also be more vulnerable to domestic violence
due to isolation, financial dependence, sponsorship concerns, language barriers, and a
lack of knowledge of community resources (British Columbia, 2015; British Columbia,
2016; Burczycka, 2016; Statistics Canada, 2016). Similarly, women with physical
disabilities that restrict their movement experience domestic violence at nearly double the
rate as compared to women who do not have these limitations (British Columbia, 2015;
British Columbia, 2016; Burczycka, 2016; Disability Alliance BC, 2016; Statistics
Canada, 2016). The Disability Alliance BC (2016) reported that persons with disabilities
were between 50% and 100% more likely than those without disabilities to have
experienced violence by a spouse.
An American study by Ammar, Couture-Carron, Alvi, and San Antonio (2014)
compared 34 Muslim and 84 non-Muslim immigrant women’s experiences with police in
relation to domestic violence in America. The authors observed that the dynamics of
domestic violence were similar for both groups; however, for immigrant women,
immigration heightens their vulnerability to violence and it amplifies the nature of the

7

violence they experience (Ammar et al., 2014). This is due to immigration status, limited
English language skills, limited knowledge of legal protection and services, financial
dependence, and lack of support systems, which intensify the women’s sense of isolation
(Ammar et al., 2014).
Ammar et al. (2014) also revealed that immigrant women have a higher lifetime
prevalence of domestic violence. Rates among immigrant women in Latina, Filipino,
South Asian, and Korean communities range from 30% to 50% in comparison to 22.1%
of the general population (Ammar et al., 2014). Similarly, police were involved in
domestic violence issues 24% more with Muslim women than non-Muslim women
(Ammar et al., 2014). However, nearly a fifth (17%) of Muslim women in this study
reported that language barriers were a deterrent against calling the police (Ammar et al.,
2014). Other reasons included that they did not believe it was a matter for the police to
get involved in (37.9%), or that they did not believe that the police could do anything to
resolve the matter (27.5%) (Ammar et al., 2014). In fact, in nearly a third of cases (30%),
it was a neighbor who called the police to report the incident (Ammar et al., 2014).
Given the myriad of devastating consequences of domestic violence, it is
important to assist women in violent relationships, not only to respond to the victim’s
immediate physical and emotional well-being, but also to address the victim’s overall
quality of life. A study by Coker, Davis, Arias, Desai, Sanderson, Brandt, and Smith
(2002) identified some of the medical symptoms that plague victims long after the initial
abuse and these medical issues include anxiety, depression, heavy alcohol and
prescription drug use, and chronic injuries, such as chronic pain, severe headaches, and

8

osteoarthritis. Neilson (2015) also explained that chronic posttraumatic stress disorder
often plagues victims long after the violence has ended.
The consequences of domestic violence can also have a ripple effect on society.
For instance, witnessing a parent abusing or being abused has damaging effects on
children (British Columbia, 2010B; British Columbia, 2016; Burczycka, 2016; Burczycka
& Conroy, 2017; Department of Justice, 2003; Plecas et al., 2000; Statistics Canada,
2016). Children who witness domestic violence have a higher probability of themselves
becoming part of a generational cycle of violence, with boys more likely to become
abusive and girls more likely to enter into an abusive relationship (British Columbia,
2016; Burczycka, 2016; Burczycka & Conroy, 2017; Department of Justice, 2003; Plecas
et al., 2000; Statistics Canada, 2016).
The findings from the Statistics Canada 2014 General Social Survey (GSS)
revealed that before age 15, one in ten Canadians had witnessed violence by a parent or
guardian against another adult in the home. Those who witnessed this violence were more
likely to also have experienced both physical and sexual abuse in their life (44%)
(Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). Consequently, British Columbia (2010B) has noted that the
presence of domestic violence is an indicator for the co-existence of child maltreatment
and suggests that between 30% to 40% of children and youth who witness domestic
violence also experience direct physical abuse themselves. Thus, domestic violence and
child maltreatment, including neglect and physical abuse, can occur simultaneously.
There are also exorbitant financial costs associated with domestic violence. The
demands on the justice, health, and social services systems all cost Canadian taxpayers
approximately $7.4 billion dollars (British Columbia, 2015). This estimate was calculated

9

based on direct costs to the victim, costs to children in terms of missed days of school,
costs to employers in regards to victims being distracted or less productive, operating
costs for social services such as shelters, and costs associated with criminal proceedings
and medical care (British Columbia, 2015).
A Canadian study by Zhang, Hoddenbagh, McDonald, and Scrim (2012) came to
a similar conclusion about the cost of domestic violence. The authors divided the
economic impact of domestic violence into three groups: direct victims, whose costs were
the highest at $6.0 billion; third parties, including children and employers, at $889.9
million; and costs associated with the justice system, which were estimated to be $545.2
million (Zhang et al., 2012). Another Canadian study by Varcoe, Hankivsky, FordGilboe, Wuest, Wilk, Hammerton, and Campbell (2011) estimated the total annual costs
attributed to violence against women at $13,612 per survivor and of this amount, 86% or
$11,370, was borne by government in taxpayer funding.

2.2 Causes of Domestic Violence
There is no single factor that can accurately predict when, how, why, or who will
be a victim of domestic violence or who will be a perpetrator of domestic violence.
Instead, domestic violence includes a combination of individual, family, social,
community, and societal factors that interact with one another, but research is still trying
to understand how these factors are related (Dutton, 2006).
Individual factors that can increase a person’s risk to commit domestic violence
include, a history of child abuse; age; gender; beliefs and behaviour; physical and mental
health; substance use; and stress (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; Etherington &
Baker, 2016; Sinha, 2013; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). Many of these same

10

factors also contribute to being a victim of domestic violence as well (Capaldi et al.,
2012; Coker et al., 2002; Etherington & Baker, 2016; Sinha, 2013).
It should be noted that problems with heavy alcohol use are often thought to
increase the risk for domestic violence, but studies have shown that this could be the
result of other related factors such as the environment and stress (Capaldi et al., 2012;
Sinha, 2013; Stith et al., 2004).
Multiple studies have shown that a history of child abuse is linked to an increased
risk for either committing domestic violence or becoming a victim of domestic violence
(Burczycka & Conroy, 2017; Department of Justice, 2003; Etherington & Baker, 2016;
Plecas et al., 2000; Statistics Canada, 2016; Thornberry & Henry, 2013; Wright & Fagan,
2013). Moreover, children who experience a variety of types of abuse, including physical,
emotional, and sexual, or more severe abuse are more likely to become violent later in
life than children who experience fewer types of abuse or less severe abuse (Etherington
& Baker, 2016; Thornberry & Henry, 2013; Wright & Fagan, 2013).
Societal factors related to friends and family can also increase the risk for
domestic violence, if such relationships include having friends who are violent;
unsupportive friendships and unhealthy relationship with other family members; and
being socially isolated and lacking social support (Capaldi et al., 2012).
A concerning aspect about community factors is that it can make individuals who
are exposed to violence believe it is normal (Capaldi et al., 2012; Wright & Fagan, 2013).
Neighbourhood characteristics that can influence the risk of being a perpetrator or victim
of domestic violence include lack of services; unwillingness of community members to

11

intervene; social disorder such as noisy neighbourhoods, vandalism, people using or
dealing drugs’; and poverty (Capaldi et al., 2012; Sinha, 2013; Wright & Fagan, 2013).

2.3 Theories of Domestic Violence
Just as there is no one cause of domestic violence, there is not one theory of
domestic violence that can explain how individual, social, communal, and biological
factors interact with one another to predict domestic violence tendencies. There are a
variety of theories that have been applied to understanding domestic violence. These
theories include biological, psychological, sociological, and feminist perspectives. Some
of these theories address why men commit domestic violence, others explain why women
stay in such relationships, and some try to explain both (Loue, 2001).
Feminist theories of violence against women emphasize that patriarchal structures
of gender-based inequalities of power in society are the root of the issue (Loue, 2001).
Instead of viewing the violence as an individual problem, it is seen as an expression of
male domination or control of women (Loue, 2001).
Psychological theories postulate that domestic violence is the result of childhood
experiences, personality traits such as the need to control, personality disorders such as
borderline personality disorder, psychological disorders such as poor impulse control or
low self-esteem, and/or head injuries (Loue, 2001).
Sociological theories that have attempted to explain domestic violence include
family systems theory, social learning theory, resource theory, and exchange theory.
Social learning theory suggests that individuals become aggressive toward their family
members because their aggressive behaviours are learned through observing others, and
these behaviours are strengthened through positive reinforcement (Bandura, 1973). Social

12

learning theory further postulates a causal link between exposure to violence in an
individual’s family of origin and violence towards an intimate partner in adulthood
(Bandura, 1973). Thus, according to the theory, exposure to violence instils a belief
system condoning the use of violence in intimate relationships, in turn increasing the
likelihood that individuals will engage in such violence (Loue, 2001).
Social learning theory attempts to explain the presence of intergenerational
violence and it proposes that children who grow up in violent families may learn violent
behaviours, imitate those behaviours, and then repeat them in future relationships
(Bandura, 1973; Loue, 2001). As previously stated researchers have found a causal link
between witnessing domestic violence as a child and being more likely to be in domestic
violence relationship as either a perpetrator or victim (British Columbia, 2016; Burczycka
& Conroy, 2017; Department of Justice, 2003; Etherington & Baker, 2016; Plecas et al.,
2000; Statistics Canada, 2016; Thornberry & Henry, 2013; Wright & Fagan, 2013).
Each theory provides a logical explanation of domestic violence and to some
extent each has empirical support. However, no one theory has emerged as having
overwhelming support, rather aspects of each theory have been used to explain domestic
violence. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that domestic violence is a complex
phenomenon and it is difficult to encapsulate a human behaviour in one theory. That is
why an integrated approach should be taken much like the ecological theory.
The ecological framework is based on evidence that there is no single factor that
can explain why some people or groups are at higher risk for domestic violence, while
others are not (Dutton, 2006). The ecological framework views domestic violence as the
outcome of interaction among many factors at four levels, individual (ontogenetic),

13

relationships (microsystem), community (exosystem), and societal (macrosystem)
(Dutton, 2006). Dutton (2006) explains a nested ecological framework for understanding
domestic violence, wherein the individual is viewed as nested or operates within a
broader context.
The macrosystem is comprised of the broad cultural values and beliefs systems,
where risk factors that influence whether violence is encouraged or inhibited are
imbedded in the cultural and societal norms about male dominance, and view violence as
an acceptable means to resolve conflicts (Dutton, 2006). The exosystem is composed of
groups and institutions such as school, work, peers, and church, or any other groups that
connect the family to the larger environment (Dutton, 2006). Community factors that
increase the likelihood of domestic violence include unemployment, population density,
mobility, and level of crime (Dutton, 2006). The microsystem is the family unit itself; the
risks associated with becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence may include having
violent family and friends (Dutton, 2006). The ontogenetic factors refer to an individual’s
personal development (Dutton, 2006). The ontogenetic risk factors increasing the
likelihood of domestic violence include how the individual’s personal history and
biological factors influence the individual’s current behaviour (Dutton, 2006).
The ecological framework views the interaction between factors at different levels
as equally influencing an individual’s risk factors of becoming a perpetrator of domestic
violence later in life. The ecological perspective is better suited to explaining domestic
violence as it incorporates many different factors, all which can have a lasting effect on a
person and shape how they behave.

14

Chapter 3.0 Prevalence and Characteristics of Domestic
Violence
3.1 Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Canada
As previously noted, domestic violence is an issue across Canada. In 2014, 4% of
Canadians self-reported being physically or sexually abused by their intimate partner
during the preceding five years (Burczycka, 2016). In 2015, almost 92,000 people in
Canada were victims of domestic violence, representing just over a quarter (28%) of all
victims of police-reported violent crime, with female victims representing 79%, or about
72,000 of the victims, and men accounting for approximately 19,000 of the victims
(Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). In 2011/2012, victim service providers reported that they
assisted almost 460,000 victims and that the majority of victims were women (Allen,
2014). About six in ten women were victims of a violent offence by a spouse, ex-spouse,
intimate partner, or other family members (Allen, 2014).
In 2015, Canada’s rate of police-reported domestic violence was 309 per 100,000
population (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). Saskatchewan (666 per 100,000) and Manitoba
(554 per 100,000) reported the highest rates across the provinces in Canada (Burczycka
& Conroy, 2017). Still, as with police-reported crime in general, rates of domestic
violence were the highest in the territories, with Nunavut having the highest rate of
police-reported domestic violence in Canada (3,575 per 100,000 population) (Burczycka
& Conroy, 2017). In Nunavut, the risk to women was seven times greater (Burczycka &
Conroy, 2017). For example, in 2015, there was a 2% increase of intimate partner
physical assaults compared to 2014 (from 231 victims per 100,000 population to 235),
and police-reported intimate partner sexual assaults rose by 7% in 2015 compared to

15

2014, and this number was 36 times higher among women than men (Burczycka &
Conroy, 2017).
When considering domestic violence offences specifically, in 2015, a current or
former dating partner offended against their partner more than other marital status
groups, (54%), and in this category women accounted for approximately 25,000 victims
(Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). Statistics Canada also revealed that police-reported
domestic violence was more prevalent in current relationships than in relationships that
had ended (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). In total, current dating partners victimized 34%
of all victims, whereas 32% of victims were victimized by a current spouse, 20% were
victimized by a former dating partner, and 12% were victimized by a former spouse
(Burczycka & Conroy, 2017).
Physical assault was the most common offence (77%) experienced by victims of
police-reported domestic violence in 2015, with hitting or choking being the most
common (71%) (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). According to the 2014 GSS on
victimization, the most commonly reported type of domestic violence experienced by
people participating in the survey was being pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped
(Burczycka, 2016).
Unfortunately the majority (70%) of domestic violence victims do not contact the
police and fewer than one in five (19%) contacted the police to report victimization
(British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016; Burczycka, 2016). Instead of reporting to
the police many women confided in a trusted friend or family member (British
Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016). As such, according to police records in 2014, the
overall rate of police reported domestic violence had declined 2% from 2013, from 235.9

16

per 100,000 population to 230.2 per 100,000 population (Burczycka, 2016). With that in
mind, the ‘dark figure’ of domestic violence may never truly reveal how many victims
suffer from domestic violence; however, homicide rates are quite accurate and it is
important to note that in Canada, the intimate partner homicide rates have not been
increasing. The rate of 2.7 intimate partner homicide per one million people recorded in
2015 represented a 46% drop since 1995 and a 23% drop since 2005 (Burczycka &
Conroy, 2017).
Continuing a decades long trend, Statistics Canada noted there was a 16%
decrease in homicide rates for spousal, including married, separated, divorced, and
common-law partners, from 2009 to 2015 (British Columbia’s Coroners Services, 2016;
Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). In 2009, there were 137 intimate partner homicides whereas
in 2015, there were 110 intimate partner homicides (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). In
2015, women, and in particular Indigenous women, continued to be at a higher risk of
intimate partner homicide, at a rate of about five times greater than that of men (4.5
versus 0.9 victims per 1 million) (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017).
Burcycka and Conroy (2017) noted that between 2005 and 2015, of the 964
intimate partner homicides, the majority (74%) were committed by a current or former
legally married or common-law spouse. According to police-reported data, on intimate
partner homicides occurring between 2005 and 2015, females aged 25 to 29 years old,
were at the highest risk (8.2 per 1 million population), while women aged 65 or older
were at the lowest risk (2.0 per 1 million) (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017).
An American study in Chicago, Illinois reviewed 87 intimate partner homicides
and interviewed 500 women 18 years and older between 1995 and 1996, who came to the

17

hospital or health care clinic in areas where the risk for domestic violence was high
(Block, 2003). The study examined ways that practitioners, nurses, police officers, and
other service providers could assist these women (Block, 2003). Block (2003) determined
that the highest risk factors for future violence were the type of past violence, the number
of days since the last incident, and the frequency or increasing frequency of violence in
the past. For instance, any attempt to strangle or choke a woman increases her risk
factors, and in a fourth of the female homicides, a man strangled or smothered the victim
to death (Block, 2003). Leaving a relationship was also noted to increase the risk of
death, as it was reported that 45% of the victims had attempted to leave the relationship
when they were murdered (Block, 2003).
It should be noted that criminal harassment is also an issue for women in Canada
and it is often perpetrated by an intimate partner. Criminal harassment was introduced in
the Criminal Code of Canada in 1993 and is generally defined as repeatedly following or
communicating with another person, repeatedly watching someone’s home or workplace,
and threatening another person known to the victim or the victim’s family member
(Sinha, 2013). Women are predominately the victims of criminal harassment and in 2011,
there were approximately 11,700 female victims of police-reported criminal harassment,
accounting for over three-quarters (76%) of all victims (Sinha, 2013). In 2011, 85% of
offenders in criminal harassment incidents were men, and of those men more than half
(58%) were current or former intimate partners with the female victim (Sinha, 2013).

3.2 Prevalence of Domestic Violence in British Columbia
From 2004 to 2009 it was estimated that more than 160,000 women in B.C. were
victims of domestic violence (British Columbia, 2015). In 2015, in B.C. there were 9,437

18

police-reported female victims of domestic violence and 2,660 male police-reported
victims of domestic violence (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017). The province with the highest
female and male police-reported domestic violence was Ontario with 20,752 female
police-reported victims and 5,177 male police-reported victims of domestic violence, and
the territory with the highest number of victims was Nunavut showing 783 female policereported victims of domestic violence and 126 male police-reported victims of domestic
violence (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017).
Despite the police-reported victims of domestic violence totaling approximately
9,400 for female victims, the British Columbia’s Coroners Service (2016) reports that
each year across the province more than 30,000 women and children affected by
domestic violence are referred to violence against women counseling and outreach
programs, more than 40,000 new clients are supported by police-based, communitybased, and court-based victim service programs, more than 18,000 women and children
access transition houses and safe houses, and an average of 232 women were admitted to
a B.C. hospital for severe injuries sustained from domestic violence.
An American study by Bonomi, Holt, Martin, and Thompson (2006) examined
whether female victims of severe physical, psychological, or sexual domestic violence
contacted the police more often than other abused women. It was discovered that women
with severe physical or psychological domestic violence were more likely to call the
police (Bonomi et al., 2006). Among the 431 women callers, 96% of the women, this
includes all categories, made more calls to the police, if a weapon was involved (58%)
and if they were severely physically abused (40%) (Bonomi et al., 2006).

19

To better understand intimate partner homicides and to identify prevention
opportunities, a death review panel appointed under the British Columbia’s Coroner Act
was held in June 2016 (British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016). Over a six-year
period from January 2010 to December 2015, 75 fatal domestic violence incidents
occurred in B.C., resulting in 100 deaths (73 deaths were of an intimate partner, friend or
family member killed at the hands of a current or former intimate partner and 27 deaths
were related to homicide-suicide) (British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016).
The review found that more victims were women (78%) than men (22%), most of
the women were aged 20-59 years old, almost two-thirds of all victims partners had a
known history of domestic violence, although fewer than one-third of all victims had
reported the violence to police, few victims (10) had a protection order, and 80% of the
all the victims were killed in their own home (British Columbia’s Coroners Service,
2016). The British Columbia’s Coroners Service (2016) noted that arguments or quarrels
were the most frequently reported motives for intimate partner homicide involving both
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal victims (48% and 27%) and the second most likely set of
motives in intimate partner homicide were frustration, anger, or despair.

3.3 The Justice System’s Response to Domestic Violence Issues
The legal response to domestic violence has expanded. There are a number of
responses including pro-arrest policies, pro-prosecution policies of Crown Counsel, a
variety of protective orders, specialized police and RCMP units, and specialized domestic
violence courts. Historically, criminal justice professionals were reluctant to intervene in
matters involving domestic violence, as they were believed to be private family matters
(Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Kethineni & Beichner, 2009; Plecas et al., 2000). However,

20

over the past several decades the criminal justice system has made significant strides to
hold offenders accountable and has developed innovative programs to assist victims of
domestic violence as well as their children.
Prior to the 1960s, there was not an organized response to violence against
women in B.C., but feminist activism changed this in the 1960s and 1970s (Rossiter,
Yercich, & Jackson, 2014). Initially, this movement was met with resistance, as the
common response within the criminal justice system, and to an extent, society, was that
domestic violence was a private matter (Rossiter et al., 2014). As such, in Canada in the
1970s, when police officers did respond, they were encouraged to mediate and refer
victims and offenders to social service agencies rather than make an arrest (Dawson &
Hotton, 2014).
In the 1980s, the Canadian Government faced increased political, social, and legal
pressures from women’s and victims’ rights advocacy groups to develop policies that
directed police officers to apply the same standards of accountability to domestic
violence that they would to any other crime (Hirschel, Buzawa, Pattavina, & Faggiani,
2007). In the 1980s and 1990s organized responses to domestic violence grew with the
establishment of victim services, sexual assault/women assault centres, counseling
programs, and transition houses. During this period the government also supported the
development of anti-violence services by funding programs and services (Rossiter et al.,
2014).
A major turning point for criminal justice professionals working with domestic
violence offences was the influential 1984 landmark finding from Sherman and Berk’s
Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (Plecas et al., 2000; Tutty, Wyllie, Abbott,

21

Mackenzie, Ursel, & Koshan, 2008). To determine the most effective method of
responding to domestic violence, the researchers used a random assignment method to
test three standard methods of police response over an 18-month period with the
Minneapolis Police Department (Sherman & Berk, 1984). When suspected of a simple
(misdemeanor) domestic violence assault, police officers either arrested the suspect,
ordered the suspect away for eight hours, or provided some form of advice, such as
informal mediation (Sherman & Berk, 1984). The offender’s behaviour was then tracked
for six months, with both official data and victim reports. After the six month period,
10% of the arrested offender’s recidivated, 19% of the offender’s recidivated after some
form of police advice, and 24% recidivated after being removed for a period of time
(Sherman & Berk, 1984). Based on their results Sherman and Berk (1984) favoured a
presumption of arrest, unless there were clear reasons why an arrest would be
counterproductive. Despite making this recommendation, they stated that police should
have a loophole that allows for some discretion as imposing a requirement of arrest
regardless of the immediate situation invites circumvention (Sherman & Berk, 1984).
Nevertheless, pro-arrest policies were widely adopted across North America, as it
seemed that forceful intervention was the most effective in deterring domestic violence.
Unfortunately, subsequent studies on Sherman and Berk’s findings failed to replicate the
Minneapolis findings, as they did not find any significant differences in the effect of
arrest on recidivism compared to the informal measures (Broidy, Albright, & Denman,
2016; Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Kethineni & Beichner, 2009; Plecas et al., 2000; Tutty et
al., 2008). However, by the time the additional studies were completed, many police
departments in Canada and the United States had already implemented the new policies

22

of mandatory arrest, or, alternatively, policies on preferred arrest (Plecas et al., 2000;
Tutty et al., 2008). In the 1980s, a directive from the Government of Canada led law
enforcement agencies to adopt pro-arrest and pro-prosecution policies in cases of
domestic violence (Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Rossiter et al., 2014).
Pro-arrest policies have played a pivotal role in changing the criminal justice
system’s recognition of domestic violence as a criminal matter, as opposed to a private
matter (Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Kethineni & Beichner, 2009; Plecas et al., 2000; Tutty
et al., 2008). The primary objectives of pro-arrest policies are to transfer decision-making
responsibility to lay charges from the victim to the police and Crown Counsel and to
ensure that police officers and Crown Counsel do not use their discretion to avoid laying
charges because they believe it is a private matter (Department of Justice, 2003).
Pro-arrest policies require police officers to investigate all cases of domestic
violence thoroughly and recommend charges when there are reasonable and probable
grounds to believe that an offence had been committed, even when there are no injuries,
and independent of the victim’s wishes (Ministry of Justice, 2010; Vancouver Police
Department, 2014). Pro-arrest policies are aimed at reducing the incidents of domestic
violence through general and specific deterrence (Brown, 2000). In terms of general
deterrence, it is hoped that others who are engaged in domestic violence offences are
made aware of the legal repercussions as a way to discourage or prevent them from
acting in a similar manner (Tomlinson, 2016). In terms of specific deterrence, when a
negative consequence occurs due to poor choices it is hoped that a person learns from
their actions and does not act in a similar manner again (Tomlinson, 2016).

23

Available research suggests that firm pro-arrest policies help reduce domestic
violence rates and that prosecution and conviction leads to victim satisfaction with the
criminal justice system (Cooper, 2012; Plecas et al., 2000). The more time prosecutors
and judges invest in victims by allowing them to voice their needs and concerns, the more
cooperative the victim will be with the prosecution of her abusive partner as it removes
some of the prosecution related burdens off victims, which alleviates some of the victims’
fears (Cooper, 2012).
Pro-arrest policies have garnered widespread support across North America;
however, there is still debate as to their efficacy and whether these policies not only fail
to deter offenders, but, in some cases, increase the level of violence towards the victim
(Iyengar, 2009; Landau, 2000; Plecas et al., 2000). This could be because the police
officer’s intervention and arrest may signal, for the first time, that a crime has occurred,
which may trigger a new set of dynamics in the couple’s relationship (Iyengar, 2009;
Landau, 2000; Plecas et al., 2000).
There are some negative consequences associated with pro-arrest policies (Dicter,
2013; Fraehlich & Ursel, 2014; Hamel, 2011). Firstly, limiting a police officer’s
discretion can result in a marked increase in dual arrests, thereby re-victimizing the
victim (Dicter, 2013; Fraehlich & Ursel, 2014; Hamel, 2011; McCormick, Cohen, &
Plecas, 2011). Secondly, pro-arrest policies may cause the victim not to contact the police
out of fear of her partner’s subsequent reprisal and thereby disempowering the woman,
particularly given that many women call the police to stop the current violence, rather
than to request that their partner is arrested and prosecuted (McCormick et al., 2011).

24

While pro-arrest policies were intended to limit police discretion and provide
better protection for domestic violence victims, an unintended consequence of pro-arrest
policies has been the increased number of dual arrests (Fraehlich & Ursel, 2014). In one
survey, some police officers claimed that limited discretion resulted in increased pressure
to arrest all parties who may have perpetrated a domestic violence incident (Sisic, 2012).
There are a number of problems with this approach, such as further victimizing the
victim, decreasing the likelihood that the victim will seek help thereby increasing the
level of her risk, challenges associated with accessing victim services, and an increased
likelihood that the charges will be stayed in court (Light, 2009).
In response to the increasing rate at which women were dually arrested, primary
aggressor policies were introduced into Canada in 1993 (Department of Justice, 2003).
To combat dual arrest, the British Columbia Violence Against Women in Relationships
(VAWIR) policy and police agencies in B.C. also introduced primary aggressor policies
(British Columbia, n.d.A; & Vancouver police department, 2014). According to the
principles set out in these policies, the practice of arresting both parties is discouraged;
instead, police officers are to conduct a primary aggressor analysis by identifying
whether the person acted in self-defense, whether there is a pre-existing history of
violence between the partners, and to consider the difference in the physical size between
the partners (British Columbia, n.d.A; Vancouver Police Department, 2014). With the
advent of primary aggressor policies there was a significant decline in dual arrests. For
example, a study by Fraehlich and Ursel (2014) revealed that in Winnipeg, Manitoba
there was a decline in dual arrests from 9% in 1993 to 3% in 2004-05.

25

There are many probable causes as to why dual arrests initially increased, such as,
an incomplete investigation, lack of adequate training or inexperience due to high
turnover rates, fears regarding police liability, police officers’ incorrect perception about
the term “pro-arrest”, erroneously believing that it applies in all cases, and the inability to
identify a primary aggressor, as women typically use a weapon to either to shield or
defend themselves, which can injure the offender, but protects the victim from
subsequent injuries (Fraehlich & Ursel, 2014; Light 2009).
There are studies that have examined victim perceptions of pro-arrest policies and
the study by Plecas et al. (2000) reported that 86% of victims agreed with the pro-arrest
policy and were satisfied with how police dealt with their case. However, it is important
to note that 18% of victims were uncooperative at the time of the offence by refusing to
provide a statement, 20% were not receptive to Specialized Victim Services, 17% failed
to show up for an agreed upon initial interview with a victim service worker, 40% said
they did not want to proceed, 9% refused to go to court, and 15% failed to comply with
the no contact order (Plecas et al., 2000). This could be due to the fact that victims may
just want police support to stop the violence at the moment rather than having the
offender charged and/or having to attend court (McCormick et al., 2011).

3.4 B.C.’s Response to Domestic Violence Issues
In B.C., the formal responses to domestic violence were minimal until the B.C.
Ministry of Attorney General implemented the first Wife Assault Policy in 1984 (Rossiter
et al., 2014). This policy directed law enforcement to initiate charges in instances of
spousal abuse and encouraged Crown Counsel to lay charges (Rossiter et al., 2014).
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, governments enacted and amended federal laws such as

26

the Victims of Crime Act, made amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada to include
criminal harassment, and developed policies such as the VAWIR policy that redefined
forms of violence and responses to violence against women (Rossiter et al., 2014).
In B.C., the VAWIR policy was developed in 1993 to revise and expand on the
original General Wife Assault policy (Ministry of Justice, 2010). The intent of the 2010
VAWIR policy was to set out the protocols, roles, and responsibilities of service provides
across the justice and child welfare systems to guide multi-agency, coordinated, and
effective responses to domestic violence (British Columbia, 2010B; Ministry of Justice,
2010). The revised policy also includes the new ‘Highest Risk Protocol’ that requires a
multi-agency collaborative approach between various community partners (Ministry of
Children and Family Development, 2015).
In B.C., the Family Law Act (FLA) was enacted in 2013, and ensures that the best
interests of children are considered when families experience a separation or divorce
(British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016). The FLA also increases the ability of the
court to deal with family violence by defining family violence, making the safety of
children a key goal, and legislating risk factors (British Columbia’s Coroners Service,
2016). The FLA defines family violence as physical abuse, sexual abuse, or any attempt
to physically or sexually abuse a family member, psychological or emotional abuse,
including harassment, stalking, intentional damage to property, and in the case of
children direct or indirect exposure to family violence (Family Law Act, 2011).
Another turning point in the response to domestic violence is the advent of
specialized courts in order to provide consistent and speedier resolutions. Currently, B.C.
has four domestic violence courts, in Duncan, Nanaimo, Kelowna, and Surrey (Ministry

27

of Justice, 2014). Specialized courts have the benefit of reducing recidivism, as there are
lower levels of dismissals or withdrawn charges, a reduction in the time it takes to file a
charge and for the charge to go to trial, increased conviction rates, and increased
willingness from victims to testify (Ministry of Justice, 2014). While the courts in B.C.
have not yet been evaluated, Dr. Birnbaum, Bala, and Jaffe evaluated the Toronto
domestic violence court in 2014, and overall the results were favourable. The specialized
court leads to more timely and effective outcomes, often by way of early resolution, as it
brought all the participants, including the professionals, to the same courtroom, on the
same day, before the same judge (Martinson & Jackson, 2016).
The first domestic violence court was established in Winnipeg, Manitoba in the
1990s and it made a substantial difference in reducing risk to women. Prior to this
specialization, Manitoba had one of the highest female intimate partner homicide rates in
Canada (Ismaili, Sprott, & Varma, 2012). After instituting these specialized courts, in
addition to pro-arrest and pro-prosecution policies, Manitoba had the lowest female
intimate partner homicide rates in Western Canada and the third lowest rate in the
country (Ismaili et al., 2012).
The Interagency Case Assessment Teams (ICAT) is another community approach
that reduces recidivism and provides supports to victims and their families. The ICAT
consists of a variety of first responders to high-risk domestic violence cases and often
includes, but is not limited to victim services workers, police, health workers, Crown
Counsel, and social workers (Ending Violence Association of BC, 2015). The purpose is
to identify high-risk cases of domestic violence and to collaboratively create a safety plan
(Ending Violence Association of BC, 2015).

28

To address domestic violence related incidents, police departments in B.C.,
Canada, the United States, as well as some European countries have had success with
specialized follow-up units, called domestic violence units (DVU). Since 1997, the
Vancouver Police Department has operated a domestic violence and criminal harassment
unit, consisting of a police officer and a counselor, which has been well received by the
community (Vancouver Police Department, n.d.). The purpose of a DVU is to investigate
and manage high-risk cases of domestic violence, and in particular to support women, by
ensuring charges proceed to court. The DVU and police based or community based
victim services workers, also assist women by connecting them with counselors and
community service providers who help the women formulate safety plans, which are
comprehensive plans that increase the women’s safety, this could include installing a
security system or a safe place for the women to go to (Vancouver Police Department,
n.d.). There is also support for the offender to ensure he is connecting with counseling
and other relevant programming (Vancouver Police Department, n.d.).
The wrap-around services and support provided through specialized DVUs have
been effective in reducing intimate partner homicides, increasing victim safety,
increasing victim autonomy and empowerment, increasing efficiency and coordination
among service providers, and reducing recantation and offence minimization by victims
(Pivot, 2013). In recent years, based on the success of DVUs and the need to better
address and prevent domestic violence, there has been a movement to develop more
DVUs across B.C. (Provincial Domestic Violence Office, 2014). In addition to DVU’s in
Vancouver, Greater Victoria, Abbotsford, and New Westminster, the Province of B.C. is

29

investing $1 million dollars in startup costs to create DVU’s in Nanaimo, Surrey,
Kelowna, Prince George, and North Vancouver (Province of British Columbia, 2017).
With the added supports and services DVUs provide, it is expected that victims
will be more likely to contact police officers upon re-assault. For instance, a study by
Jolin, Feyerherm, Fountain, and Friedman (1998) documented that women who had
involvement with specialized police agencies were more likely (75%) to call police
officers to report further episodes of re-victimization, compared to 35% of women who
did not receive such services. The study also found that offenders who had contact with
specialized police agencies were more likely (44%) than offenders who did not have this
contact (37%) to be prosecuted, they were also more likely to be convicted, (24% versus
17%), and they were more likely to be sentenced (27% versus 18%) (Jolin et al., 1998).
The findings indicate that interventions do reduce domestic violence, as significantly
fewer victims from among those who had involvement with specialized police agencies
experienced further violence during the six months following the arrest (Jolin et al.,
1998).
Likewise, a study by Holder, Robinson, and Rose (2009) found that DVUs had
greater success in assisting women to follow through with legal proceedings, which led to
fewer stays of proceedings and more convictions. The study found that 30% of victims in
regular police agencies declined to proceed with charges, whereas only 8% of victims
with support from specialized police agencies declined (Holder et al., 2009). In addition,
the women supported by the specialized police agencies were more likely to leave their
abusive partner sooner, within four months, as compared to an average of 14 months for
victims not receiving such support (Holder et al., 2009).

30

Another benefit of specialized DVUs is the increased knowledge police
investigators develop regarding the complexity of managing domestic violence files. This
is particularly important when one considers that a study a decade ago by Malm, Pollard,
Brantingham, Tinsley, Plecas, Cohen, and Kinney (2005) documented the substantially
increasing demands on police services over the past 30 years. While there was a decrease
in police capacity, there was simultaneously an increase in demand for services, and an
increasing complexity of policy and regulations to follow, so much so that the amount of
time required by police officers to handle a case from initial call to acceptance by Crown
Counsel increased by 964% (Malm et al., 2005). Having specialized officers manage
these files and work within the complex multiple layers of policy ensures that domestic
violence cases are handled appropriately and in a timely fashion.
The FLA followed numerous recommendations made from the 2008 Keeping
Women Safe report and the Representative for Children and Youth’s (RCY) report titled
Honouring Christian Lee (Turpel-Lafond, 2009). The recommendations stated that
consistent enforcement of civil protection orders is critical to increasing victim safety and
that there should be a shift away from civil protection orders being enforced through civil
law and instead be enforced through criminal law (Turpel-Lafond, 2009). This is because
it became clear that the process to enforce civil orders through the civil law was
complicated, inconsistent, and essentially not effective (Turpel-Lafond, 2009).
Civil protection orders are available under the FLA to persons; this can include
children, who are at risk of family violence (British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016).
A civil protection order may include any terms the court considers necessary to protect
the person’s safety, including restricting contact or communication between family

31

members, limiting the possession of weapons or firearms, and directing police to remove
a family member from a residence (British Columbia’s Coroners Service, 2016). Persons
subject to a civil protection order have not committed a criminal offence; instead the aim
of civil protection orders is to protect victims, who are at risk of domestic violence, from
further incidents of domestic violence by requiring the subject to abide by certain
conditions, which could include not contacting the victim or leaving the victim’s
presence when she requests it (Family Law Act, 2011; Turpel-Lafond, 2009). If the
subject does not adhere to such conditions, a municipal police officer or RCMP member
can hold the subject accountable for his actions when he breaches such conditions, and if
the subject is found guilty he can face criminal charges (Family Law Act, 2011; TurpelLafond, 2009). Unfortunately, there is a scarce amount of information available about
civil protection orders in Canada, but this study aims to shed light on the effectiveness of
the orders as well as any challenges victims of domestic violence who have accessed the
orders and service providers have encountered.

Chapter 4.0 Civil Protection Orders and Criminal Orders with
No Contact Conditions
4.1 Differences Between Civil Protection Orders and Criminal Orders
with No Contact Conditions
There are two different ways that the legal system can address domestic violence:
the criminal process results in a criminal order, the offender will most likely have a
criminal record, a no contact condition with the victim, and if the offenders want the
offence removed from their criminal history they will have to apply for a pardon; and the
civil process, which includes protection orders. One key difference between protection
orders and orders made through criminal procedures is the lower burden of proof that is
32

required for criminal charges (Logan, Shannon, Walker, & Faragher, 2006). Of note, is
the fact that if there is no violation of the civil protection order the subject does not face
any criminal charges; however, if the subject on the civil protection order violates a
condition he can face serious criminal consequences (British Columbia, n.d.B).

4.2 Protection Orders
There are two main types of protection orders in B.C., peace bonds and family
law civil protection orders (British Columbia, 2013). All protection orders list conditions
set by a judge for a person to follow that are meant to protect another person that they
were in an intimate relationship with or, in the case of peace bonds, for anyone a person
reasonably fears will harm them (British Columbia, 2013). Typically, the subject of the
protection order is to have no or limited contact with the person being protected (British
Columbia, 2013).
One of the major distinctions between peace bonds and family law civil protection
orders (hereinafter protection orders) are the ways that they are issued. Peace bonds exist
under the federal Criminal Code of Canada whereas protection orders exist under the
provincial law (British Columbia, n.d.B). Peace bonds can protect applicants from
anyone, without necessitating a pre-existing intimate or familial relationship, and without
requiring that the subject of the peace bond commit a criminal offence against the
applicant (British Columbia, n.d.B). Further, the applicant does not have to be in
immediate danger, although they do have to articulate a fear for their safety (British
Columbia, n.d.B). A person who fears for their safety can request that the police or
RCMP apply for a peace bond on their behalf, and if the application is accepted, Crown
Counsel will be involved to represent the application in criminal court (British Columbia,

33

n.d.B). Although Crown Counsel presents the application, the person requesting the
peace bond and the subject might have to be present in court (British Columbia, n.d.B). If
the subject on the peace bond violates or breaches a condition on the peace bond it could
result in serious consequences including a fine, probation, or jail time, and a criminal
record (British Columbia, 2013). Peace bonds are in effect for up to one year but a person
can request another peace bond after it expires (British Columbia, 2013).
A family law protection order, commonly referred to as a civil protection order, is
made under the B.C. FLA and it can protect persons, including a partner or former
partner, a child, or a relative that resides in the home, from physical or visual exposure to
family violence (British Columbia, 2013). To apply for a civil protection order it is
recommended that the applicant hire a lawyer and the matter can be heard in either
Provincial or Supreme Court. Of note, there is no fee to apply for a protection order in
Provincial Court, but if a person applies for a protection order in Supreme Court there is a
fee ranging from $80 to $200 (British Columbia, 2013). Some people choose to apply in
Supreme Court as their lawyer can speak for them, via affidavits, and explain the
violence they have been subjected to, and many people apply to Supreme Court if they
are intending to apply for a divorce, division of property, or if the person has a child
custody or access agreement through the Supreme Court (British Columbia, 2013).
Since the matter is heard in court, the applicant needs to serve notice to the
subject, as the subject needs to be present in court, unless the applicant can justify that it
is unsafe to wait (British Columbia, 2013). If the court agrees, court registry staff will
make an order without requiring notice, which is sometimes referred to as an ex parte

34

order which is a legal term meaning in the interest of one side, so that the matter can be
heard without having the subject appear in court (British Columbia, 2013).
As an FLA protection order can be granted by two different levels of court judges,
it may create different proceedings within the same court, or create one process within
the Supreme Court and one within the Provincial Court (Martinson & Jackson, 2016).
This can happen when a person is in Provincial Court for a family matter and then in
Supreme Court for the protection order. It can also become confusing when the subject of
a protection order breaches the conditions, which will then be heard in Provincial
Criminal Court. This can create a lot of confusion, as it has been reported that there is
very little communication between the two courts (Martinson & Jackson, 2016).
Martinson and Jackson (2016) interviewed judges, lawyers, and service providers
to gain their perspectives about family matters heard in both criminal and family court
and judges noted that they almost never knew that other court proceedings related to the
same family were taking place, while family law and criminal defense lawyers agreed
that there was no communication between courts about the existence of other court
proceedings, or content of other orders. Martinson and Jackson (2016) also discovered
that there was consensus around the fact that police officers, Crown Counsel, and the
courts were still confused about how protection orders should be enforced.
Both types of protection orders are entered in the Protection Order Registry after
the judge signs them (British Columbia, 2013). The Protection Order Registry is a
confidential computer database that contains all protection orders in B.C., including
criminal and civil orders (British Columbia, 2013). Municipal police and RCMP both
have access to the registry, as one purpose for it is to assist police officers when they are

35

called to a domestic violence incident. As such they can call a central number to get up to
date information regarding protection orders (British Columbia, 2013).
The civil protection order remains in effect until the end date imposed by the
judge; if there is no pre-determined date; it remains in effect for a year (British Columbia,
2013). Similar to a peace bond, if the subject of a protection order does not follow the
conditions on the order it could result in a criminal offence, and, subsequently, serious
consequences, such as a probation order or incarceration (British Columbia, n.d.B).

4.3 Criminal Orders with No Contact Conditions
Criminal orders with no contact conditions are made by the Court or by police
officers, via bail release conditions (Department of Justice, 2015). They differ from
protection orders in that they are attached to a specific criminal event (Department of
Justice, 2015). The conditions on these orders typically limit or prevent the accused
person from contacting the victim, the victim’s children, or other identified people who
are relevant to the victim or case file (Department of Justice, 2015). The no contact
condition remains in effect until the accused has his sentencing appearance in court,
where the accused can be found guilty, meaning the no contact condition can be added
onto the community or custody order and will then remain in effect until the end of the
order; alternatively if the accused is found not guilty at trial the no contact condition is
lifted (Department of Justice, 2015).

4.4 Rate at Which Criminal Orders with No Contact Conditions are
Issued
Statistics Canada reported that between 2005/2006 to 2010/2011, when domestic
violence occurred criminal charges were laid or recommended against the offender in
more than 7 out of 10 incidents as compared to 5 out of 10 incidents for non-domestic
36

violence related charges (Beaupre, 2015). No contact conditions are typically placed on
criminal orders when the victim is a witness against the accused, the accused is charged
with an offence of assault or uttering threats against a victim, or the victim expresses a
concern about being contacted by the accused (Department of Justice, 2015). Since 2014,
no contact conditions have been required for all probation orders and conditional
sentences, unless the Court finds there are exceptional circumstances or the victim agrees
to have contact with the accused (Department of Justice, 2015). This can cause confusion,
especially when both civil and criminal court are involved with a family, as a criminal
order may direct the subject not to have contact with the victim, yet the civil court
requires contact between parents for child care purposes.

4.5 Recidivism Rates for Offenders on Criminal Orders with No
Contact Conditions
One way to determine recidivism rates for criminal orders with no contact
conditions is to look at Report to Crown Counsel (RCCs) reports completed by either
municipal police, RCMP, or probation officers about a new offence or a breach of an
existing court order submitted to Crown Counsel for charge approval (Ministry of Justice,
2016A). In 2013/14, the total RCCs in B.C. identified as domestic violence related were
14,462, and in 2014/15 that number rose slightly to 14,584 (Ministry of Justice, 2016A).
Of the 14,584 RCCs in 2014/15 in B.C. Crown Counsel approved 12,621, of which 92
(11%) charges resulted in alternative measures, 1,922 (4%) resulted in no charge, and 186
(12%) were returned to the investigating agency (Ministry of Justice, 2016A).
Many cases are eventually stayed because the victim becomes un-cooperative and
some cases cannot successfully proceed to court without the victim’s testimony (Beaupre,
2015). For instance, this can occur when police officers arrest offenders against the
37

victim’s wishes, which can result in a victim who is more likely to be a hostile witness
(Beaupre, 2015). At other times there are insufficient resources directed at building cases
that could otherwise proceed to court even without the victim’s testimony (Beaupre,
2015).
Of the RCCs that were approved to court in 2014/15, 234 (1.8%) were found not
guilty, 4,645 (36.5%) were stayed, 6,126 (48.1%) were found guilty, 1,673 (13.1%)
resulted in peace bonds, and 45 (0.4%) were categorized as other (Ministry of Justice,
2016A). In 2014/15, there were 16,066 orders made in both adult and youth criminal
court where the Protection Order Registry was notified, as the cases were designated “K”
files, meaning that they were domestic violence related cases (Ministry of Justice,
2016A).

4.6 The Rate at Which Civil Protection Orders are Issued
The civil protection order available under the FLA was created on March 18,
2013, in response to frustrations with restraining orders that were made under the
previous family law act, Family Relations Act (FRA) (Ministry of Justice, 2016B.). FRA
restraining orders were only available in limited circumstances and enforcement was
confusing and ineffective as police officers were unsure how to proceed with breaches as
they were a civil matter, the duration of the restraining orders was unclear, and the
conditions were not always related to safety (Ministry of Justice, 2016B).
The FLA made many changes and increased the ability of the court to address
domestic violence (Government of BC, n.d.). The FLA now clearly defines family
violence, created a protection order limiting communication between family members
where there is a safety risk, broadened the range of eligible family members, made

38

protection orders available on a stand-alone basis (whereas previously restraining orders
needed to be connected to other family law proceedings), made the conditions on
protection orders related to safety to promote more effective enforcement (whereas the
conditions previously available through FRA restraining orders were not safety related,
which undermined the seriousness of the order and resulted in enforcement challenges),
made the default expiry date as one year unless the court specifies a different duration
(previously FRA restraining orders did not have an end date which again caused
enforcement issues), and defined breaches of protection orders as a criminal offence
(Government of BC, n.d.).
In 2013/14 the number of general family orders sent to the Protection Order
Registry from Provincial Court were 1,437, while 526 were sent from the Supreme Court
(Ministry of Justice, 2016B). Similar trends were reported in 2014/15, when the number
of general family orders sent to the Protection Order Registry from the Provincial Court
was 1,343, and 429 were sent from the Supreme Court (Ministry of Justice, 2016B). To
put these numbers in context, the British Columbia’s Coroners Service (2016) reported
that in 2014, only 11% of victims of spousal violence reported having a protection order.

4.7 Recidivism Rates for Subjects on Civil Protection Orders
Overall, the number of RCCs sent from the police to Crown Counsel for alleged
breaches of FLA protection orders was 70 in 2013/2014. Of these, Crown Counsel
approved 49 (70%) for charge, returned 8 (11%) to the police for further information, and
12 (17%) were not approved (Ministry of Justice, 2016B). The number of alleged
detected breaches doubled in 2014/15, when police submitted 135 RCCs. Of those Crown
Counsel approved 82 (61%) for charge, returned 8 (6%) to the police for further

39

information, and did not approve 39 (29%) (Ministry of Justice, 2016B). In 2013/14, the
total number of RCCs submitted to Crown Counsel was 64,254, of those 14,462 were
designated “K” files, meaning that they were domestic violence related (Ministry of
Justice, 2016B). These numbers slightly rose in 2014/15, with all RCCs totaling 65,666,
and of those 14,586 were “K” file RCCs (Ministry of Justice, 2016B).

4.8 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Civil Protection Orders
There are a variety of reasons why victims apply for protection orders and the
study by Logan et al. (2006) found that domestic violence victims had five goals for
utilizing the criminal justice system to access protection orders. These goals included
increasing personal safety, keeping the offender from hurting others in the future,
deterring others from committing similar crimes, securing validation that a crime had
been committed, and retribution or ‘payback’ for the injustice suffered (Logan et al.,
2006). Whatever a victim’s reasons for applying for a protection order there are clear
benefits to utilizing such an order.
There are three major advantages of protection orders. First, they include fewer
financial and time costs associated with protection orders than with criminal charges that
are before the court, as in general, criminal cases are costly to the taxpayer and can take a
long time before a resolution is reached (Logan et al., 2006). Second, they allow judges
to provide conditions that can be uniquely crafted for each case, which helps address the
specific violence, any child protection concerns, and the need for counseling (Logan et
al., 2006). Finally, given that some women do not wish to proceed with criminal charges
but want to convey to their partner that the violence must stop, protection orders can

40

provide a source of empowerment to the women because they allow for more flexibility
in coping with their situation (Logan et al., 2006).
Protection orders can also be useful in cases where the subject does not have a
criminal history and is afraid of criminal consequences, as it can curtail violence because
it may induce fear in the recipient and it may prohibit criminal behavior (Connelly &
Cavanagh, 2007). The protection order may be perceived as an easier option as the rules
of evidence tend to be less onerous than the criminal standards and it is also beneficial for
the subject as he can avoid criminal sanctions (Connelly & Cavanagh, 2007).
A disadvantage of protection orders is the subject’s willingness to comply. An
American study by Benitez, McNiel, and Binder (2010) reviewed empirical studies of
outcomes associated with protection orders and factors associated with violations of the
orders. The study highlighted several variables that may help in considerations of
protection orders. First, there was a shared understanding that protection orders were
more likely to be violated within the first three months (Benitez et al., 2010). Second, the
presence of stalking behavior appeared to elevate with the issuance of a protection order,
which the researchers noted increased the risk of a protection order violation (Benitez et
al., 2010). Third, the severity of violence before the issuance of a protection order
predicted the severity of future violence (Benitez et al., 2010).
In terms of other disadvantages of protection orders, Logan et al. (2006)
conducted a review of protection orders and identified ten research studies (Chaudhuri &
Daly, 1992; Finn & Colson, 1998; Fischer & Rose, 1995; Harrell, Smith, & Newmark,
1993; Kaci, 1994; Keilitz, Hannaford, & Efkeman, 1997; Logan, Shannon, & Walker,
2005; Logan, Stevenson, Evans, & Leukefeld, 2004; McFarlane, Malecha, Gist, Watson,

41

Batten, Hall, et al., 2004; Ptaccek, 1999) that discussed two main barriers: accessibility
and acceptability. Accessibility barriers included eligibility criteria, bureaucratic
challenges, such as having to wait in court for lengthy periods of time or having to return
to court multiple times, difficultly associated with obtaining or serving the protection
order, and lack of justice system response or enforcement to violations of the conditions
on the order (Logan et al., 2006). In terms of acceptability barriers, there were five
subcategories focusing on women’s perceptions, including fear of perpetrator retaliation,
embarrassment, perceived lack of efficacy, lack of resources, and negative perceptions of
the justice system (Logan et al., 2006).
Still, Kethineni and Beichner (2009) discovered that protection orders afforded
several advantages to victims, namely that they gave victims a sense of ‘empowerment’
that is not afforded in criminal proceedings. For instance, victims are independently able
to decide whether to pursue a protection order, the victim has an active role in the process
and in the design of the final order and can ask for specific conditions that meet their
needs, and also the economically dependent victim can seek an intervention while
preserving the offenders earning power, which would otherwise be compromised if the
offender was arrested and placed in jail (Kethineni & Beichner, 2009). As research has
shown that protection orders provide benefits to the victim, the following chapter
provides an overview of the various protection orders that are granted in provinces and
territories across Canada.

Chapter 5.0 Civil Protection Orders in Canadian Provinces and
Territories
As civil protection orders are enacted via provincial statutes and legislation, there
is variation in their use in Canada in terms of the application process, who can apply, who
42

is protected by the order, types of conditions, how long the order remains in effect, the
various types of protective orders, and enforcement procedures. Below is a brief
summary of Canadian provinces and territories response to domestic violence through
civil procedures.

5.1 Alberta
On June 1, 1999, the Protection Against Family Violence Act (PAFVA) was
proclaimed in Alberta and it received Royal Assent on March 18, 2006 (Alberta Justice
and Solicitor General, 2014). The PAFVA enables family members to apply for
temporary emergency protection orders (EPO) as well as longer-term Queen’s Bench
Protection Orders (QBPO) in cases of family violence (Alberta Justice and Solicitor
General, 2014). Throughout the years, amendments have been made to the PAFVA, such
as an expanded definition of family members to include relatives, whether they reside
together or not, to authorize counseling for any minor children without the consent of the
subject, and to add stalking to the definition of family violence (Alberta Justice and
Solicitor General, 2014).
The EPO can order the subject to stay away from family members, including
seniors, women, men, and children whether they reside together or apart, as well as
married, separated, divorced, common-law partners, partners who have not resided
together, step-children, and people who live together where one person has legal care and
custody over the other (Alberta Justice Solicitor General, 2014). The EPO also allows the
victim to remain in the home, if it is safe, while the subject has to leave (Alberta Justice
and Solicitor General, 2014).

43

The legislation also allows a person to apply for a QBPO, which is a longer-term
order that allows police to assist victims of family violence (Alberta Justice and Solicitor
General, 2014). Both orders may be in force for up to one year and may be extended for
further one-year periods (Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, 2014).
An EPO may be obtained through an application made personally by an applicant,
through an application made by a police officer, designated human services worker, or by
a non-family member with the leave of the Court and it can be granted even if there are
criminal matters pending (Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, 2014). There is no cost
to apply, and an applicant can represent herself in provincial court or before a justice of
the peace if it is after regular business hours, or the applicant can hire a lawyer (Alberta
Justice and Solicitor General, 2014). Some possible conditions can include no contact,
area restriction, and exclusive possession of the family home regardless of title (Alberta
Justice and Solicitor General, 2014). The EPO hearing is conducted ex-parte and is
granted only where there is an urgent need for protection meaning the woman needs
assistance at that moment, it takes effect immediately, but it is not enforceable until the
subject has notice of the EPO, which the police ensure is served, and the police enter the
EPO on the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) system (Alberta Justice and
Solicitor General, 2014).
When an EPO is granted, the Court will set a date for a review of the EPO in
Queen’s Bench, no later than nine days after granting the EPO (Alberta Justice and
Solicitor General, 2014). At the Review, the Court can confirm the EPO, replace it with a
QBPO, revoke the EPO, or direct that an oral hearing be held (Alberta Justice and
Solicitor General, 2014).

44

There are two ways to obtain a QBPO, through a review of an EPO or by directly
applying to the Court of Queen’s Bench (Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, 2014). A
QBPO may be granted by a Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench, since there is no
urgency the police do not assist in QBPO applications and in order to apply there may not
be concurrent criminal proceedings (Alberta Justice and Solicitor General, 2014).
Although there are no fees to apply for a QBPO, the Family Law Office/Legal Aid does
not provide free assistance to people making an application for a QBPO (Alberta Justice
and Solicitor General, 2014). A QBPO can contain the same provisions as an EPO, plus
require the subject to reimburse the applicant for monetary losses suffered as a direct
result of the family violence, grant either party temporary possession of personal
property, prohibit either party from taking, converting, damaging, or otherwise dealing
with property including animals, and order the subject to attend counseling (Alberta
Justice and Solicitor General, 2014). Generally, applicants are required to notify the
subject of the QBPO application by serving them a notice and are also required to
forward a certified copy of the QBPO to the police for entry on the CPIC system (Alberta
Justice and Solicitor General, 2014).
Breaching a condition on the protection order is a criminal offence and if the
subject is found guilty for their first offence, the subject is liable to a fine of not more
than $5000, imprisonment for a term of not more than 90 days, or both (Alberta Justice
and Solicitor General, 2014). If the subject is found guilty for a second offence the
subject can be imprisoned for a term of not less than 14 days and not more than 18
months, and for a third or subsequent offence the subject can be imprisoned for a term of

45

not less than 30 days and not more than 24 months (Alberta Justice and Solicitor General,
2014).

5.2 Saskatchewan
The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act came in effect in 1995 (The Victims of
Interpersonal Violence Act, 1994). Saskatchewan and has two types of civil protection
orders, the emergency intervention order and victim assistance order (The Victims of
Interpersonal Violence Act, 1994). Either victims, or someone on behalf of the victim,
with the victim’s consent, can apply for either order when violence occurs between
people who live(d) together as a couple or in an intimate relationship, between parents of
a child regardless of marital status, and between people in an ongoing caregiving
relationship, regardless of whether they lived together or not (The Victims of
Interpersonal Violence Act, 1994). In terms of enforcement, both orders are entered onto
CPIC and consequences for breaching the order will result in a criminal offence, which
could include incarceration (The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act, 1994).
Emergency intervention orders can be granted without notice by a justice of the
peace, but similar to Alberta, it cannot take effect until the subject has received a copy of
the order. Again, similar to Alberta, the order can contain such provisions as allowing the
victim and other family member’s exclusive occupation of the residence, regardless of
ownership (The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act, 1994).
A victim assistance order is similar to an emergency intervention order but is
designed for use in non-emergency situations and so the victim needs to make an
application at the Court of the Queen’s Bench (The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act,
1994). It can contain similar provisions as an emergency intervention order as well as

46

provisions requiring the respondent to pay the victim compensation for monetary losses
suffered by the victim and any child of the victim or any child who is in the care and
custody of the victim as a direct result of the domestic violence, and a provision granting
either party temporary possession of specified personal property (The Victim of
Interpersonal Violence Act, 1994).

5.3 Manitoba
Manitoba’s Domestic Violence and Stalking Act came in effect on September 30,
1999 (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998). Under this Act there are two
different types of civil protection orders, which are obtained from a justice of the peace of
the Provincial Court of Manitoba, and prevention orders obtained from the Court of
Queen's Bench (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998). When violated, both
orders can result in a criminal offence and the offender can face serious consequences,
such as imprisonment (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998).
An applicant can apply for either order for a person they live or lived with in an
intimate or familial relationship, someone they dated, or for a person who is the
biological or adoptive parents of a child, regardless of their marital status or whether they
have ever lived together (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998) In addition, a
person who has been subjected to stalking can apply, regardless of the nature of her
relationship with the stalker (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998).
Victims of domestic violence or stalking can seek protection orders without notice
to the subject, but have to provide evidence under oath about the violence they have
endured (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998). Applications can be made in
person but there are procedures in place to enable telephone applications (Manitoba

47

Justice, n.d.). To ensure 24-hour assistance community organizations that have received
special training and have been designated by the Ministry of Justice can process
applications (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998). The provisions of the
protection order could require the subject to turn over weapons and authorize the police
to search for weapons (The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, 1998). The protection
order can be in effect for upwards of three years or more if the justice of the peace is
satisfied that a longer order is needed to protect the victim (The Domestic Violence and
Stalking Act, 1998). There is no charge to apply; however, if an applicant applies to
cancel the protection order there is a fee (Manitoba Justice, n.d.).
Prevention orders can also be made without notice to the subject, but again the
order takes effect once the subject has been notified (The Domestic Violence and Stalking
Act, 1998). Provisions can include sole occupation of the family residence, temporary
possession of specified personal property, seizure of items used by the subject to further
the domestic violence or stalking, requiring the subject to pay compensation for any
monetary losses incurred by the applicant or any child of the applicant, and
recommending or requiring the respondent to receive counseling (The Domestic Violence
and Stalking Act, 1998).

5.4 Ontario
There is no family violence legislation in Ontario, but victims of this type of
violence can apply for a civil protection order, restraining or urgent restraining order,
under the Family Law Act, if the applicant is fearful that a current or former intimate
partner will hurt them or their children (Ministry of Attorney General, 2009). A
restraining order can be issued permanently or for a set amount of time, while an urgent

48

restraining order is made for those in immediate danger (Ministry of Attorney General,
2009). An urgent restraining order can be made ex parte but it only lasts a short period of
time, as it is meant to be temporary while the applicant applies for a permanent
restraining order (Ministry of Attorney General, 2009).
For both orders, the applicant is required to complete a CPIC restraining order
information form (Ministry of Attorney General, 2009). If any order is breached the
subject may have to appear in criminal court where he could face serious consequences
such as incarceration (Ministry of Attorney General, 2009).

5.6 New Brunswick
In New Brunswick, a restraining order is a civil protection order that an applicant
can apply for in the Court of the Queen’s Bench via the Family Services Act, which has
been in effect since 1980 (Public Legal Education and Information Service of New
Brunswick, 2016). Although an applicant does not need to show fear of harm to receive a
restraining order, the applicant must have a family connection (Family Law New
Brunswick, 2012). As a restraining order is a civil order, if the subject violates a
condition, the matter will return to court to determine if the subject has been in contempt,
if so he could face a fine or be incarcerated (Family Law New Brunswick, 2012). Unlike
a peace bond, which is enforced under the Criminal Code of Canada, the police generally
do not have the authority to enforce restraining orders, but they can provide support if the
subject’s behaviour is criminal in nature (Family Law New Brunswick, 2012).

5.7 Nova Scotia
The Domestic Violence Intervention Act came into effect in Nova Scotia in 2003
(Domestic Violence Intervention Act, 2001). The emergency intervention order is a
49

temporary order, it cannot exceed 30 days, to help protect victims of domestic violence;
the definition of domestic violence also includes stalking (Domestic Violence
Intervention Act, 2001). A victim, 16 years or older, or someone on behalf of the victim,
with the victim’s consent, can apply for an emergency intervention order over the phone,
there is no paperwork in the process, but it is effective once the subject has had notice of
the order (Domestic Violence Intervention Act, 2001).
The provisions on an emergency intervention order are similar to those of
protection orders in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and can grant the victim or other family
members exclusive occupation to the victims’ residence, regardless of any legal rights of
possession or ownership, temporary possession of personal property, require a peace
officer to seize any weapons, and award temporary care and custody of a child of the
victim to the victim or to another person (Domestic Violence Intervention Act, 2001).
If the subject breaches a condition on the emergency intervention order municipal
police or RCMP can charge the subject with a criminal offence and if found guilty for a
first offence the subject could face a fine of not more than $5,000 dollars, a term of
imprisonment of not more than three months, or both, and in the case of a second or
subsequent offence the subject could face a fine of not more than $10,000 dollars, or a
term of imprisonment for not more than two years, or both (Domestic Violence
Intervention Act, 2001).

5.8 Prince Edward Island
In Prince Edward Island there are two types of protection orders, an emergency
protection order and a victim assistance order, that can be issued under the Victims of
Family Violence Act (Victims of Family Violence Act, 1988). A victim of domestic

50

violence or another person on behalf of the victim, with the victim’s consent, can apply
for an emergency protection order to the justice of the peace over the phone, but this
order cannot exceed 90 days (Victims of Family Violence Act, 1988).
Provisions on the order are similar to other provinces, it can grant the victim or
other family members exclusive occupation of the victim’s residence, regardless of any
legal rights of possession or ownership, require the subject to pay the rent or mortgage,
temporary possession of personal property, and temporary care and custody or day to day
care of a child of the victim to the victim or some other person (Victims of Family
Violence Act, 1988).
An applicant applies for a victim assistance order before a Supreme Court judge;
it is a longer-term solution and can be used when the emergency intervention protection
orders expires or when the situation is not an immediate emergency (Victims of Family
Violence Act, 1988). If found guilty of failing to comply with either order, the penalty for
the first offence is a fine not less than $500 and not more than $5,000, a term of
imprisonment of not more than three months, or both, and in the case of a second or
subsequent offence the penalty is a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than
$10,000, a term of imprisonment of not more than two years, or both (Victims of Family
Violence Act, 1988).

5.9 Newfoundland and Labrador
The Family Violence Protection Act was enacted on July 1, 2006, in
Newfoundland and Labrador and provides support to victims suffering from domestic
violence through an emergency protection order (Newfoundland Labrador Justice, n.d.).
It is a temporary protection order that is granted by a provincial court judge for a term not

51

exceeding 90 days (Newfoundland Labrador Justice, n.d.). The police typically apply for
an emergency protection order as it available on a 24 hours basis, but victims can apply
for it as well, in some cases without notice to the subject, or have a representative apply
for it on their behalf (Newfoundland Labrador, n.d.).
In order to be eligible to apply, victims need to live or have lived with the subject
in a conjugal relationship, or have one or more children with the subject (Newfoundland
Labrador Justice, n.d.). The provisions under an emergency protection order can grant the
victim or other family members exclusive occupation of the victims’ residence,
regardless of any legal rights of possession or ownership, temporary possession of
personal property, grant temporary care and custody or day to day care of a victim’s child
to the victim or to some other person, and for the subject not to possess weapons
(Newfoundland Labrador, n.d.).
If the subject breaches a condition and is found guilty in the case of a first
offence, the offender can face a fine of not more than $2,000, a term of imprisonment not
more than six months, or both, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, the
subject can face a fine of not more than $5,000, a term of imprisonment of not more than
12 months, or both (Newfoundland Labrador, n.d.).

5.9.1 Yukon
The current version of the Family Violence Prevention Act has been in effect
since 2005, and specifies that civil support for victims of domestic violence can come in
the form of an emergency intervention order and a victim assistance order (Family
Violence Prevention Act, 2002). A victim or a designate on behalf of the victim, with the
victim’s consent, can apply for an emergency intervention order in person to a justice of

52

the peace (Family Violence Prevention Act, 2002). The order can be issued ex parte and
is in effect for an average of 45 days (Family Violence Prevention Act, 2002). The
provisions of the order can grant the victim or other family members exclusive
occupation of the victims’ residence, regardless of any legal rights of possession or
ownership, and can require the subject to surrender all firearms for up to 180 days
(Family Violence Prevention Act, 2002).
A victim assistance order is in effect for an average of 90 days, can only be issued
by a territorial judge, requires the victim to attend court, and makes the same provisions
as an emergency intervention order (Family Violence Prevention Act, 2002). If a subject
breaches either order and is subsequently found guilty, in the case of a first offence the
subject can face a fine of not more than $2,000, a term of imprisonment of not more than
six months, or both, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence the subject can
face a fine of not more than $5,000, a term of imprisonment of not more than 12 months,
or both (Family Violence Prevention Act, 2002).

5.9.2 Northwest Territories
The current version of the Protection Against Family Violence Act has been effect
since 2013, and provides protection to victims of domestic violence via an emergency
protection order or a protection order (Northwest Territories Justice, 2013). A victim can
apply for an emergency protection order through a justice of the peace in an ex parte
hearing; however the order cannot exceed 90 days (Northwest Territories Justice, 2013).
An emergency protection order can include provisions, such as giving the victim the
exclusive right to occupy the home, temporary entitlement to exclusive use and

53

possession of items, and a requirement that the subject turn over all weapons to the police
for a period not exceeding 90 days (Northwest Territories Justice, 2013).
A protection order applies when the situation is not an emergency and the victim
needs protection for longer than 90 days (Northwest Territories Justice, 2013). The length
of a protection order is not limited by the legislation, and a protection order can be
granted via an ex parte hearing; however, the subject needs to be made aware of the order
for it to take effect (Northwest Territories Justice, 2013). The judge issuing a protection
order has more optional provisions, such as, ordering the subject to attend counseling, or
requiring the subject to pay for medical or dental costs to the victim (Northwest
Territories Justice, 2013). If either order is violated and the subject is found guilty, the
subject can face a fine not exceeding $10,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding six
months, or both (Northwest Territories Justice, 2013).

5.9.3 Nunavut
The Family Abuse Intervention Act came into effect in Nunavut in 2006, and
provides victims of domestic violence support to prevent further domestic violence via
two types of protection orders, an emergency protection order and a community
intervention order (Consolidation of Family Abuse Intervention Act, 2006).
An emergency protection order can be issued by a justice of the peace via an ex
parte hearing for a period of a year (Consolidation of Family Abuse Intervention Act,
2006). The provisions on the emergency protection order can include temporary
possession of personal belongings, regardless of ownership, to the victim for a period not
exceeding 90 days, temporary custody of a child of the victim for a period not exceeding
90 days, a provision recommending family counseling for all parties involved, and if the

54

subject used or threatened to use a weapon there is a provision that can restrict the subject
from using firearms or weapons for a period not exceeding 90 days (Consolidation of
Family Abuse Intervention Act, 2006).
A community intervention order is another protection order under the Family
Abuse Intervention Act and it cannot exceed three years in length (Consolidation of
Family Abuse Intervention Act, 2006). The provisions on the community intervention
order relate to directing the victim and subject to attend traditional Inuit counseling with a
traditional counselor or any other provision as deemed necessary by the justice of the
peace (Consolidation of Family Abuse Intervention Act, 2006). If either order is violated
and the subject is found guilty, in the case of the first offence the subject can face a fine
of not more than $5,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, in
the case of a second or subsequent offence the subject can face a fine of not more than
$10,000, a term of imprisonment not more than two years, or both (Consolidation of
Family Abuse Intervention Act, 2006).
This author could not find information on protective orders in Quebec; therefore it
has not been added in the analysis. Most of the Canadian provinces and territories have
similarities in their approaches to civil protection orders, but in Canada there is a lack of
research on the effect of protection orders ability to reduce recidivism and the effect the
orders have on the victim’s perception of safety and well-being. The following chapter
provides an overview of literature from the United States and includes a few studies from
Canada regarding protection orders effectiveness.

55

Chapter 6.0 Canadian and American Civil Protection Order
Studies
There has been much debate about the effectiveness of civil protection orders, as
empirical studies about the orders’ deterrent effects on re-victimization are somewhat
inconclusive (Broidy et al., 2016; McFarlane, Malecha, Gist, Watson, Batten, Hall, &
Smith, 2004; Mears et al., 2001). The studies that evaluate the effectiveness of protection
orders typically rely on observational research designs and measure efficacy either
through the victim’s perceptions of protection orders, enforcement of protection orders by
the police, and the protection order’s ability to prevent recidivism (Brame, Kaukinen,
Gover, & Lattimore, 2015).
Another factor in this debate relates to the definition of efficacy. Efficacy
connotes solving the issue and in cases of domestic violence this would mean that the
offender does not recidivate. However, as will be discussed further in Chapter 8, the
author’s telephone interviews with service providers revealed that some domestic
violence offenders can be very persistent and relentless, where very little could have been
implemented to prevent re-offending; in such cases, to say that a protection order failed
would not be a fair assessment. That being said protection orders on their own, without
any other safety measures; provide little value to victims, especially to victims who have
willful offenders.
The literature assessing the influence of intervention methods on subsequent
domestic violence is limited, the findings are mixed, and the data in Canada is sparse. As
Statistics Canada shows that the majority of victims never engage with police or court
services (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017); therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether formal
methods of deterring domestic violence increases victim safety and reduces offender
56

recidivism. Due to low police reporting of domestic violence it is difficult to determine if
the women seeking protection orders sought them because they endured more violence
and perceived higher risks of violence than other victims. Thus, it could be that these
offenders are at higher risk to re-offend as they were more aggressive. Due to limited
research it is not clear if protection orders work differently for high or low risk offenders.
In the United States, there have been a number of studies examining the
effectiveness of protection orders and the impact they have on offender recidivism and
victim safety. The studies have produced mixed results, with some reporting that
protection orders have been associated with reduced risk of violence towards those who
seek them, although their effectiveness may depend on the length of the order as well as
the individual characteristics of the offender and victim, such as whether the offender is
persistent in his pursuit of the victim (Broidy et al., 2016; Carlson, Harris, & Holden,
1999; Holt, Kernic, Wolf, & Rivara, 2003; Kothari, Rhodes, Wiley, Fink, Overholt,
Dichter et al., 2012). More importantly, studies that focus on domestic violence victim’s
perception of the effect of protection orders have discovered that the orders have a
positive effect on the victim’s well-being (Ko, 2002; Logan & Walker, 2009; Russell,
2012).
An American study by McFarlane et al. (2004) compared types and frequencies of
domestic violence experienced by women before and after receiving a two-year
protection order. The results showed a significant reduction in threats of assault, physical
assault, stalking, and worksite harassment over time among all women, regardless of
receipt or non-receipt of a protection order (McFarlane et al., 2004).

57

Among the 81 women who were granted a protection order, 36 (44%) selfreported at least one violation over the 18-months of the study, 17 (21%) of the women
reported a violation at three months, 16 women (20%) reported a violation at six months,
20 women (25%) reported a violation at 12 months, and 19 women (23%) reported a
violation at 18 months (McFarlane et al., 2004). The condition that was violated the most
was not adhering to staying 200 feet from the woman’s home or workplace via, stalking,
threats of violence, or a combination of these infractions (McFarlane et al., 2004). In
terms of contacting the police when violations occurred, of the 36 women, 21 (58%) of
the women called the police at least once to report a violation (McFarlane et al., 2004).
This shows that police need to be pro-active in breaching subjects as women are doing
their part by reporting the violations.
An American study by Russell (2012) reviewed forty-three scholarly articles on
the effectiveness and safety associated with protection orders and discovered four themes,
including victim safety and effectiveness as measured by protection order violations and
re-victimization; perceptions of victim satisfaction, safety, and psychological well-being;
predictors and characteristics of victims and offenders; as well as protection order
enforcement. Russell (2012) found that although approximately 40% to 50% of
protection orders are violated, protection orders helped victim’s sense of well-being by
decreasing their perceptions of fear, threat, and injury, six months after the protection
order was issued. Again, as will be seen in Chapter 8 from the author’s interviews with
victims of domestic violence even though protection orders may not be able to afford
some victims safety from the subject, the women’s sense of well-being increases as they
are satisfied that they put some type of safety measure in place to protect themselves.

58

There are also studies that examined protection orders and future risk of domestic
violence. Broidy et al. (2016) observed the comparative effectiveness of intervention
scenarios including, arrest, civil protection orders, and both, and their results suggested
that intervention type had no influence on the odds of re-offending. The results revealed
that young male offenders and those offenders with prior offending histories were more
likely to have subsequent police contacts for domestic violence and in the four years
following formal intervention from the police or courts, 23% of offenders came into
contact with the police for domestic violence incidents (Broidy et al., 2016). The
deterrence theory speaks to persistent offenders and in such cases police action needs to
be swift, certain, and severe for these offenders to fully understand that their behaviour
will not be tolerated.
Broidy et al. (2016) found that the average age of both offenders and victims was
33 years, 77% of the offenders had at least one prior offence, 3% had only domestic
violence offences, 40% had only non-domestic violence offences, and 27% had both
domestic violence and non-domestic violence offences. An interesting trend emerged in
the study as Broidy et al. (2016) discovered that offenders in the protection order only
intervention were older (45 years and older) than the arrest only group, where the average
age was between 18-24 years. There could be a host of reasons for this, namely that
women in the protection order only group were in the relationship longer, had endured
the violence longer, and the older women in the study did not want to impact their former
partner’s employment situation (Broidy et al., 2016).
Holt et al. (2003) examined the effect of civil protection orders on the risk of
future self-reported domestic violence and injury. In the study 448 adult female residents

59

of Seattle, Washington who experienced domestic violence between 1997 and December
1998 participated in interviews at five months and nine months after the index offence
(Holt et al., 2003). The study compared odds ratios, which were estimated for risk of
contact, unwelcome calls or visits, threats, weapon threats, psychological, sexual, or
physical abuse, or injury, and abuse related medical care among women who obtained a
civil protection order after the index offence and compared them with women who did
not obtain a civil protection order (Holt et al., 2003).
The study found that civil protection orders were associated with a decreased
likelihood of subsequent physical and non-physical domestic violence as well as
significantly decreased risk of contact by the offender (Holt et al., 2003). The study
further revealed that those women who maintained the civil protection order throughout
the follow-up period of nine months showed even stronger decreases in the odds ratios,
with a 70% decrease in physical abuse (Holt et al., 2003).
Carlson et al. (1999) examined police and court records to determine how
effective protection orders were in preventing re-abuse. The researchers examined
records from 210 couples in Texas, where female victims applied for a protection order,
and then compared a two-year pre and post-test, which included two years prior to
applying for a protection order and two years following the issuance of the protection
order (Carlson et al., 1999). The results indicated a significant decline in the probability
of abuse following a protection order; prior to filing a protection order, 68% of the
women reported physical violence but after the protection order was issued 23% reported
physical violence (Carlson et al., 1999).

60

The researchers found domestic violence decreased for all groups, but it most
significantly decreased in low and medium SES women (Carlson et al., 1999). The
researchers reported that physical violence declined by 71% and very low SES women
reported a 53% decline (Carlson et al., 1999). Of the cases in which the men had been
arrested, 87% of the women reported abuse prior to obtaining a protection order, and
following a protection order only 25% reported re-abuse (Carlson et al., 1999). Of the
women whose partners had never been arrested, 38% reported abuse prior to obtaining a
protection order and following a protection order 21% reported re-abuse (Carlson et al.,
1999).
Kothari et al. (2012) examined women in Michigan involved in domestic violence
who accessed protection orders and followed these women for over a four-year period to
determine how the protection order affected them over three time periods; before, during,
and after protection orders. The researchers found that 130 victims were granted
protection orders typically for one year (88.1%) but some were shorter lengths, for six
months (9.8%), while a few were longer, lasting for two years (1.4%) or for five years
(0.7%) (Kothari et al., 2012). Most protection orders remained in place for the entire
length of the order, except 20.3%, which were terminated earlier by the women (Kothari
et al., 2012). The researchers found demographical differences in those women who
accessed protection orders versus women who did not; specifically, the women with the
protection orders were more likely to be Caucasian, married at some point to the
offender, had children with the offender, they were less likely to report alcohol and drug
use as the index criminal offence, reported that they had experienced prior domestic
violence, and were more likely to use a domestic violence shelter (Kothari et al., 2012).

61

In terms of violations, nearly half (48.5%) of the women with protection orders
reported violations, ranging from one to four times, for a total of 104 police reported
incidents (Kothari et al., 2012). The study found that protection orders were associated
with reduced police incidents and emergency department visits compared with those
women who did not access protection orders (Kothari et al., 2012). This statement is
optimistic and helps add support to protection orders reducing recidivism as the study by
Block (2003) noted that victims of domestic violence seek medical support for their
injuries rather than report the abuse to police.
Logan and Walker (2009) examined protective order outcomes for a period of 12
months for 698 women from multiple jurisdictions in the United States. Overall, the
results indicated that three out of five women experienced violence after the protection
order expired (Logan & Walker, 2009). Despite this finding, a majority, (51%) of the
women reported that the protection order was effective and a significant minority of
women (43%), felt safe while the protection order was in place (Logan & Walker, 2009).
Mears et al. (2001) examined the role of individual and contextual factors, and
legal interventions in reducing domestic violence re-victimization. The researchers
examined issuance of protection orders and no arrest, arrest but no issuance of protection
orders, and arrest and issuance of protection orders on re-victimization two years after the
intervention (Mears et al., 2001). The researchers found that no one intervention was
more effective in reducing the prevalence or time to recidivate (Mears et al., 2001). The
authors suggested one reason for the comparable effects may have to do with the fact that
domestic violence is a complex and deeply rooted issue and few women were able to
escape it (Mears et al., 2001). The findings suggest that individual level characteristics

62

are the strongest predictor of subsequent abuse; in particular, the likelihood of revictimization is greatest for minority women from low-income areas (Mears et al., 2001).
There were many studies that highlighted women’s perspectives about the
effectiveness of protection orders, their perspectives about the criminal justice system,
and their overall perspective of their well-being in relation to having a protection order.
Ko (2002) studied domestic violence victim’s perception of the effectiveness of
restraining orders, particularly temporary restraining orders, in the United States and
measured the order’s efficacy in reducing post restraining order abuse. Ko (2002) found
that restraining orders were less effective on offenders with criminal histories, those who
were unemployed, those who abused drugs and alcohol, and those involved in shorter
relationships with the victim.
In addition to those factors, Ko (2002) determined that factors of re-abuse
included being part of a minority group, in this case African-American, belonging to a
lower SES, and the presence of children. In regards to the victim’s perception of the
restraining order, Ko (2002) reported victim satisfaction in regards to the positive
psychological impacts of having a restraining order.
Barata (2007) used Q methodology to better understand domestic violence
victim’s views about the criminal justice system. Fifty-eight abused and formerly abused
women participated in sorting statements about domestic violence and small subset of
these women were also interviewed. The findings revealed that the women believed that
the criminal justice system can be trusted but was ultimately disappointing to victims
(Barata, 2007). The victims felt this way because they believed their abuse was not taken
seriously and so they did not feel protected; instead, they believed the criminal justice

63

system made matters worse due to retaliation from their partner or former partner (Barata,
2007). Due to their negative experiences these victims stated that they would not use the
criminal justice system or recommend other women to use it (Barata, 2007). As will be
discussed in Chapter 8 from the author’s interview with women affected by domestic
violence, police intervention is crucial and if women have the courage to apply for a
protection order and subsequently call the police for support when the subject is violating
the protection order, the police need to intervene or it will cause the women to lose faith
in the justice system which could have very dangerous ramifications.
That being said police action can have a positive effect on domestic violence
victims but as stated this action needs to be consistent. Apsler, Cummins, and Carl (2003)
interviewed 95 domestic violence victims to explore their perceptions of the police, in
terms of what they wanted from the police and how helpful they found the actions of the
police in relation to domestic violence offences. Victims were asked how helpful they felt
the police were when responding to the current domestic violence offence and 75%
responded with the highest rating, 16% of victims rated the police response as somewhat
helpful or fairly helpful, and 9% of victims gave the police either the lowest rating or not
at all helpful, (Apsler et al., 2003).
A Canadian study by Bradford, Bruce, Humble, and Berglund (2004) gathered the
stories and experiences of 21 Prince Edward Island women who had experienced
domestic violence and asked these women to evaluate the legal and social services they
had accessed. The women identified a number of barriers that made it difficult for them
to leave or end the abusive relationship, such as fear of retribution, failure to recognize
the abuse, lack of knowledge about or access to services and support, reluctance to give

64

up on the relationship, pressure from family or clergy, a feeling of powerlessness, lack of
confidence in the legal system, financial insecurity, and concern for the children
(Bradford et al., 2004).
In terms of legal systems, many women stated that the legal and social systems
were inconsistent, unsatisfactory, and generally supported the abusers and re-victimized
the victims, because they noted the offenders were skillful at manipulating the justice
system to their advantage, especially police officers and judges (Bradford et al., 2004).
Six women in this study had obtained a peace bond/recognizance or restraining order, but
five of them noted that it was not helpful in protecting them from further abuse because,
in their opinion, the orders were not enforced (Bradford et al., 2004). In terms of court
experience nine of the thirteen women had largely negative experiences, as they reported
feeling intimidated and disrespected, and several complained that the court system was
not user-friendly (Bradford et al., 2004). The women suggested a number of
improvements, such as coordinated services for victims and their children, improved
enforcement of orders, consistent police response, financial assistance for victims,
improved access to legal aid and family law lawyers, and public education on women
abuse and family violence (Bradford et al., 2004).
Criminal harassment is another tactic domestic violence abusers use on victim’s
to intimidate her and it can have devastating effects on the victim’s mental health. Many
women in the study reported that prior, during, and after protection order issuance their
intimate partner began stalking and criminally harassing them, which had serious
consequences on the women’s well-being, mental health, and feelings of safety (Bradford
et al., 2004). The women noted that when her former partner exhibited this type of

65

behaviour the criminal justice system could do very little for them as her former partner
was technically abiding by the protection order as the woman was not physically harmed
or the former partner was stalking them from just outside the confines of their geographic
restriction as per the order (Bradford et al., 2004; Brewster, 2001; Smith & Morra, 1994).
An American study by Brewster (2001) gathered data from extensive interviews
with 187 women who were stalked by former intimate partners to determine the legal
help-seeking behaviour and experiences of these women. More than half the women
applied for a protection order; however, 62% reported that it either had no effect or
worsened the stalkers behavior, and 77% of victims stated that police involvement either
had no effect or made the stalkers’ behavior worse (Brewster, 2001). Similarly, victims
reported very little effectiveness of arrest, criminal charges, or protection orders
(Brewster, 2001). Most women (72%) sought police assistance and 51% sought
protection orders but fewer than 24% reported that criminal charges were filed and only
6% of the women reported that their stalkers were brought to trial (Brewster, 2001).
A Canadian study by Smith and Morra (1994) analyzed data from a survey on
sexual harassment administered to almost 2,000 Canadian women. Their analysis focused
specifically on obscene and threatening phone calls, which revealed that relatively few
women (13.5%) who received harassing phone calls reported the incidents to the police
(Smith & Morra, 1994). One third of those who had reported the incidents to the police
noted that the police said that there was nothing they could do, about a quarter (27.5%) of
those who called the police said that the police gave them advice, and 22% said that the
police offered them emotional support (Smith & Morra, 1994).

66

Smith and Morra (1994) noted that since many of the women knew their stalkers
they tried various extralegal attempts to discourage their stalkers. Most women tried to
reason with their stalkers (69.5%), and many tried to ignore them (42.8%) but the
majority of the women who used the above approaches reported that it had no effect or a
negative effect on their former partner (Smith & Morra, 1994). Typically, after
unsuccessful extralegal attempts, most victims (80.2%) used one or more of a variety of
legal approaches to attempt to discourage their stalkers, 72% of victims sought police
assistance in discouraging their stalkers, and just more than half (51%) of the women
filed for protection orders (Smith & Morra, 1994).
Some studies argued for an indefinite protection orders and the study by Stoever
(2014) maintained that the longer a protection order is in place the better the reduction on
recidivism. Stoever (2014) discussed that the temporary nature of protection orders puts
domestic violence victims at risk when they needed to re-apply for protection orders each
year. Stoever (2014) conducted a 50 state survey on protection order lengths and
extension standards and reported that protection orders should be issued for at least two
years, given the persistent and potentially fatal nature of domestic violence offenders. It
was discussed that this time frame could increase survivor’s safety and autonomy while
saving them from having to re-engage with an abusive partner each year in court, which
can put the victim in harm’s way (Benitez, et al., 2010; Stoever, 2014).
While there is a relatively large amount of American research on the effect of
protection orders on perceptions or experiences of safety for victims of domestic
violence, little Canadian research has been published on this topic, and none of this
research has portrayed the protection order system as it operates in British Columbia.

67

Further, much of the existing research focuses solely on the victim’s perspective and does
not also examine the opinion of service providers, who are often in a position to
recommend this particular service to victims of domestic violence. As such, this study
sought to fill these gaps in the literature by collecting data from Canadian domestic
violence victims and service providers delivering services to populations experiencing
domestic violence.

6.1 Theoretical Framework’s Supporting Civil Protection Orders
There are a wide variety of criminal justice theories that explain behaviours of
offenders and victims of domestic violence, as well as outline the rational for treatment
programs and initiatives. Of interest to this thesis are the deterrence and rational choice
theories as they provide support for the use of protection orders. Protection orders afford
subjects another chance as they are not criminal orders, but there is a potential of criminal
charges, if the subject does not adhere to the conditions.
The potential of a criminal charge can cause subjects, who have little to no history
with the criminal justice system and who put more weight into social relationships, alarm
and compel them to obey. For subjects who have involvement with the criminal justice
system, do not consider having to obey an order as socially damaging, and criminal
consequences have little to no effect on their behaviour the deterrence theory suggests
that consequences need to be immediate or else the subject believes they can continue
their criminal behaviour. Both theories provide theoretical support for utilizing protection
orders, in particular on those subjects who are able to understand the consequences their
decisions can have on their life.

68

The rational choice theory assumes that offenders respond selectively to offences,
in particular to their opportunities, costs, and benefits, and decide whether or not it is in
their best interest to pursue the offence (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). Accordingly, the
rational choice theory views an offender as an active decision maker who commits crime
because it brings them some type of benefit (Henry & Lanier, 2006).
The rational choice theory contains six propositions; the crimes are done on
purpose in order to benefit the offender; offenders weigh out the risk and try to make the
best decisions; the decision-making varies depending on the nature of the crime; being
involved and actually committing an offence are different thought processes; involvement
decisions are comprised of initiation, habituation, and desistance; committing the offence
involves a sequence of choices made at each stage, such as preparation, target selection,
commission of the offence, escapes, and aftermath (Henry & Lanier, 2006). Thus, the
final decision to become involved in a particular crime is the outcome of an appraisal
process where the offender evaluates the relative merits of a variety of actions to achieve
an objective (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). Thus, the rational choice theory provides support
for the use of protection orders on subjects who are able to weigh their options and think
about the consequences of their actions.
There are multiple versions of deterrence theory and the ones that address
domestic violence postulate that individuals will avoid violent behaviour because they
fear sanctions (Dutton, 2006). The theory explains that deterrence may be achieved only
when potential perpetrators see arrest as having damaging consequences in their life and
see arrest as creating a negative affect within their social relationships (Dutton, 2006).
That being said deterrence theory varies depending on individual characteristics and

69

people who are connected to intimate social networks, who have strong friendships, and
value work relationships (Dutton, 2006). These people would have much to lose by being
subject to a protective order, that could result in criminal sanctions if breached, whereas
those believing they have less to lose may not follow such orders, as they attach little
stigma to being involved with the criminal justice system (Dutton, 2006).
Deterrence theory is both a mirco and a macro level theory (Tomlinson, 2016).
The concept of specific deterrence proposes that individuals who commit crime and are
caught and punished will be deterred from future criminal activity (Tomlinson, 2016).
General deterrence suggests that the general population will be deterred from offending
when they become aware of others being apprehended and punished (Tomlinson, 2016).
Both specific and general deterrence are grounded in an individual’s perceptions of
severity, certainty, and swiftness of punishment (Tomlinson, 2016). This is a crucial point
in the support for using protection orders, as if a subject breaches conditions on a
protection order, he needs to be reprimanded as soon as possible as it would show him
that his actions are inappropriate and can result in severe sanctions. For general
deterrence the public needs to be made aware of cases where subjects breach their orders
and are dealt with by the justice system in a quick manner with severe consequences so
that it will deter the general public.
Tomlinson (2016) reports that if a person commits a crime and the likelihood of
being arrested is high and that there will be swift and severe punishment, these outcomes
will deter the person from committing future crimes. That being said if there is any delay
between the offence and punishment the deterrent effect is lessened (Tomlinson, 2016).
This could explain why some subjects of protection orders continue to breach the order,

70

as they are not enforced. If the punishment for the crime is not severe enough to cause
sufficient discomfort or inconvenience to the offender, he will not be deterred from
engaging in additional criminal acts (Tomlinson, 2016). In Chapter 8 the author
discovered, through interviews with victims of domestic violence, that some subjects
‘tested the limits of the law’. This included subjects staying within the legal limits of the
order, such as being 201 feet away from the victim when the order states he needs to stay
at least 200 feet away. This type of behaviour causes the victim grief, but it teaches the
subject that he will not face as severe consequences as he was made to believe so the
behaviour continues. In cases where police cannot breach a subject for this type of
behaviour criminal harassment charges should be considered.
Aspects of the deterrence theory were modified and the reconceptualization model
has a number of advantages over the traditional model. It includes four types of effects
that may impact an individual’s choice to violate the law; personal encounter with
sanction threats; personal encounter with punishment avoidance; indirect experience with
punishment; and indirect experience with punishment avoidance (Tomlinson, 2016). This
adds support to the literature on protection orders, which explains why subjects, who
have criminal histories, and are placed on protection orders breach the order. Again for
those types of offenders consequences need to be swift, severe, and certain.
Both the rational choice and deterrence theory provide support for the use of
protection orders in cases where subjects, who are able to rationalize the consequences of
their behaviour, who have little to no negative interaction with the criminal justice
system, place weight in their social relationships and position in society, and are afraid of
criminal consequences, to reconsider their actions and to obey the protection order. The

71

theories also lend support for the use of protection orders on subjects who have criminal
histories and who do not place much weight into criminal sanctions. If these subjects
breach the order, it is best for police to act fast and to proceed with criminal charges and
as per the theories the more severe the sanction the greater the likelihood that the subject
will weigh the consequences of his actions.

Chapter 7.0 The Current Study
This study focuses on the effect that civil protection orders, issued through the
B.C. FLA, have on domestic violence victim’s perception of safety. In doing so, the study
will contribute to the very limited knowledge surrounding protection orders in Canada,
and their effect on victim’s perception of safety. In addition to collecting data directly
from victims of domestic violence who have and have not previously applied for
protection orders, the study incorporates interviews with service providers, from police
domestic violence unit officers and victim services workers, regarding their interpretation
of the effect of protection orders. The study also reviews participants’ perceptions about
the process of applying for protection orders, with the purpose of identifying challenges
that can be targeted through recommended changes to policy and practice.

7.1 Methodology
The study involves three main methodologies. For the first part of the study, an
anonymous online survey was created for adult women (over the age of 19 years old),
who have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. A recruitment poster (see
Appendix A) was created to invite women to complete the online survey. The recruitment
poster was e-mailed to a variety of women’s organizations throughout the Fraser Valley
and Lower Mainland, including but not limited to, the Ann Davis Transition Society,
72

Freda Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children, the Violence
Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR) Committee for Abbotsford/Mission,
Abbotsford Police Department, Mennonite Central Committee of BC, RISE Women’s
Legal Centre, Pacific Hepatitis C network, and Ending Violence Association of BC.
These service providers were asked to put up the recruitment poster in their offices and
waiting areas for clients to learn about and subsequently opt-into the study.
Unfortunately, very few organizations responded or agreed to assist with recruitment.
The key organization that subsequently aided in recruitment was the Ending Violence
Association of BC who put up the recruitment poster on their Facebook page, which
brought the study to the attention of domestic violence victims all over Canada.
The women were asked to participate in a 15 to 30 minute online survey on
surveymonkey.com (www.surveymonkey.com/r/protectionorders), about their experience
with protection orders. The survey ran from November 2016 to February 2017. At the
beginning of the survey there was a consent form that informed women about the study
and the participants had to acknowledge it before starting the survey; once they clicked
into the survey they were considered to have provided their consent (see Appendix B). It
should be noted that the participants in the online survey were notified that once they
completed the survey they could not withdraw their data as the survey data was collected
anonymously, but they were able to stop the survey at any time. If they chose not to
continue, their data was not saved as they had to click complete. At the beginning, end,
and throughout the survey the participants were provided with contact information for
Crisis Line BC and VictimLinkBC should they become distressed by any of the
questions.

73

The questions focused on a range of topics, including: demographics, such as the
victims age, education, employment status, income level, cultural or ethnic background,
type of relationship, duration of relationship, the language spoken at home, any physical
or mental conditions; their experience with applying for protection orders, including their
level of satisfaction with applying for such orders; their perceived level of safety before,
during, and after issuance of protection orders as well as their perceived level of wellbeing before, during, and after issuance of protection orders; and their perceived level of
satisfaction with police responses to their partner or former partners violation of the
order. The survey questions also focused on whether and why these women accessed civil
protection orders and general observations that they believed could enhance the current
system (see Appendix C). At the end of the survey, the participants were asked if they
would like to participate in an in-depth telephone interview, at their convenience.
The second methodology involved inviting survey participants to complete a
confidential qualitative telephone interview, which explored some of the anonymous
online survey themes in more depth. After the participants completed the online survey
they were invited to opt-into participate in telephone interviews. To maintain the
anonymity of the survey data, participants were provided with the telephone number and
e-mail of the author so they could make contact on their own initiative.
The semi-structured telephone interviews with women affected by domestic
violence were conducted between December 2016 to February 2017, each interview
lasted between 45 to 60 minutes. The purpose of the telephone interviews was to have the
women discuss in greater depth their experiences with civil protection orders, reasons
why they chose to apply for civil protection orders, the challenges with navigating the

74

court system and applying for such orders, their perceptions of the effect the orders had
on their safety and well-being, any experiences of re-victimization, their experiences with
the police and/or RCMP in relation to their partner or former partner violating the order,
and their perception about any challenges or strengths of the current system (see
Appendix E). Each participant received a $50 mailed gift care as remuneration for her
participation in the interview and to thank her for her valuable information and input.
Prior to commencement of the individual interviews, the women were asked if
they were willing to participate in the study; if they agreed to participate, the author read
the consent letter (see Appendix D). Once they agreed to the consent letters the author
printed the participants name on the consent form and placed the forms in an envelope
and sealed it. Each participant was assigned a coded number; thus, if the participants
wanted to withdraw from the study they could contact the author with their coded number
and the author would delete their data. Of note, no participants contacted the author to
request that their data to be withdrawn from the study. The information with their coded
number was placed in a locked cabinet in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
at UFV and they were shredded after February 1, 2017.
Each participant’s response was typed directly into an anonymized excel
spreadsheet kept on the author’s password protected laptop. It should be noted that at the
beginning and the end of the interview women were provided with contact information
for Crisis Line BC and VictimLinkBC just in case they became distressed by any of the
questions in the interview. Once the interview was conducted, the anonymized interviews
were merged into a single excel spreadsheet, and the data was analyzed for themes.

75

The third part of the study pertained to service providers in the Fraser Valley and
Lower Mainland. The author contacted many women’s groups, community organizations
assisting women in legal aid services, police and RCMP offices, social workers, court
staff, Crown Counsel, and victim services workers with an invitation to participate in an
approximately 30 minute interview. Unfortunately, very few organizations agreed to
forward the invitation to their staff, many observing that limited resources made it
difficult for them to provide the required time per interview.
In some cases, the author was able to connect with services providers through preexisting connections with key players at the agencies. Prior to commencement of the
interviews service providers were asked if they were willing to participate in the study, if
they agreed to participate, the author read the consent letter (see Appendix F). Once they
agreed to the consent letter the author printed the service providers name on the consent
form and placed the form in an envelope and sealed it. Each participant was assigned a
coded number, this was if the participant wanted to withdraw from the study they could
contact the author with their coded number and the author would delete their data. Again,
no participants contacted the author to request that their data be removed from the study.
The information with their coded number was placed in a locked cabinet at the School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at UFV, and was shredded a couple weeks after the
interview.
The service providers participated in semi-structured, primarily qualitative,
telephone interviews lasting up to 30 minutes. Service providers were asked about their
perceptions of provincial protection orders as well as criminal orders with no contact
conditions, their knowledge of civil protection orders, whether they assist women in

76

applying for FLA protection orders, their perspective on how effective protection orders
as well as criminal orders with no contact conditions were in providing safety to women
affected by domestic violence, and what they believed were the challenges and/or
benefits victims had with applying for civil protection orders (see Appendix G). Each
participant’s response was typed directly into an anonymized excel spreadsheet kept on
the authors password-protected laptop. Once the interview was finished, the anonymized
interviews were merged into a single excel spreadsheet, and the data was analyzed for
themes.

7.2 Research Ethics and Informed Consent
Domestic violence is a sensitive topic, especially for those who are experiencing
it, and as such women affected by domestic violence may feel psychologically impacted
by being asked to recall some of the factors that led them to apply for a civil protection
order. Women participating in the online survey as well as the telephone interviews were
advised that they could withdraw from study if they felt they could not continue. The
women were also provided with contact information for Crisis Line BC, as well as
VictimLinkBC. The questions asked of service providers did not elicit similarly strong
negative impacts of personal involvement with domestic violence; however, they were
still warned in advance that some of the questions could touch on uncomfortable topics.
In both cases, a review of the ethics of the research and the process of informed consent
was conducted by the University of the Fraser Valley’s (UFV) Human Research Ethics
Board and approval for the study was granted (see Appendix H).
As part of the UFV’s requirements regarding ethical collection of data, each
participant in the online survey was required to read and accept the written consent form

77

that outlined the objectives of the study, procedures of the study, and the potential
benefits of the study before beginning the online survey. Each participant in the telephone
interview was read a written consent form that required the participant to acknowledge
the information in the consent form before proceeding with the study. The consent form
was a universal form that outlined the objectives of the study, procedures of the study,
and the potential benefits of the study. All participants were advised that their responses
would be anonymized to avoid identification of individuals. For service providers their
place of employment was not named in the study.
As participation in the study was voluntary, women who experienced domestic
violence were offered a $50 gift card as incentive to participate in the telephone
interviews. The consent form outlined that the women would receive $30, but since the
author did not receive as many participants she decided to provide more to the
participants that did take part in the telephone interviews. In addition, all participants had
the opportunity to withdraw their data at any time during the interview up to several
weeks before the final draft of this study was submitted.

Chapter 8.0 Results
8.1 Sample Description
In total 48 women participated in the online survey; however, four women did not
complete the survey and so their data was removed from the analysis. The majority, 34 or
77.3%, of the women were from B.C., while 10 participants currently live outside of B.C.
Although the sample sizes were small, some demographic comparisons were made
between the two samples. Overall, the average age of participants in the study was 45.3
years, ranging from 23 to 72 years of age. Although the average age of participants from
78

B.C. was several years older (X = 49.8 years, ranging from 23 to 72) than non-B.C.
participants (X = 44.0 years, ranging from 26 to 69), this age difference was not
statistically significant, t (42) = 1.32, p > .05. Of note, 18.4% of the women reported
having a diagnosis of a cognitive disability, while 13.2% reported having a diagnosis of a
physical disability. This did not differ by province.
Nearly all (89%) participants in the study were born in Canada. Although all 10
participants from outside B.C. were born in Canada as compared to 85.3% of B.C.
residents; this difference was not statistically significant, x2 (1) = 1.66, p > .05. As shown
in Figure 1, most of the participants in both samples were Caucasian. Again, there was
not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of ethnic groups composing each
sub-sample, x2 (4) = 1.72, p > .05.
Figure 1: Ethnic Composition of BC (n=34) and non-BC (n=10) sub-samples

The most common marital statuses reported by the entire sample were being
either single (25%) or in a common law relationship (25%), followed by divorced (21%),

79

or married (16%). Only two women reported being separated (4.5%), while another two
reported being in a dating relationship. One participant was widowed (2.3%), while one
reported an “other” marital status. There were some differences in the current marital
status of B.C. versus non-B.C. participants (Figure 2). While these differences were not
statistically significant, x2 (7) = 12.5, p > .05, it is likely that the small sample size
contributed towards the overall non-significance of this test, given the comparatively
large number of marital status categories being compared. Interestingly, while one-third
of B.C. participants reported being in a common-law relationship, no participants from
outside of B.C. reported this relationship status. Instead, slightly less than one-third of
non-B.C. participants reported being either single or divorced.
Figure 2: Current Marital Status of B.C. (n=34) versus non-B.C. (n=10) participants

Overall, the participants were fairly well educated. Over a third of the sample
(36.4%) reported that they had completed a 4-year degree program; while nearly half had
either completed some college (22.7%) or had completed a 2-year diploma (22.7%). Only

80

6.8% had completed high school or less, while another one-tenth had completed some
form of higher education, including a Masters (4.5%), professional degree (4.5%), or a
doctorate (2.3%). Intriguingly, while there was not a statistically significant difference, x2
(7) = 4.5, p > .05, participants from outside of B.C. reported a smaller range of responses
regarding their education, and all had at least attended some college (Figure 3). In
contrast, participants from B.C. reported a wide range of education levels, from less than
high school through to a doctorate degree.
Figure 3: Education Levels of B.C. (n=34) versus non-B.C. (n=10) participants

The vast majority of the women were currently employed (81.4%), whereas onetenth (11.6%) were currently unemployed, 4.7% were retired, and one (2.3%) was
seeking work. B.C. and non-B.C. participants were equally likely to report current
employment (Figure 4). Although they were not statistically significantly different from
each other, x2 (3) = 5.6, p > .05, participants from B.C. were more likely to report being
unemployed.

81

Figure 4: Current Employment Status of B.C. (n=33) versus non-B.C. (n=10) participants

Given the relatively high levels of education, nearly half (42.9%) of the women
reported a personal total yearly income of between $20,000 and $49,000, while nearly
another third (31%) reported making between $50,000 and $99,000, and one participant
identified making over $100,000 yearly. Slightly more than one-fifth (21.4%) reported
making less than $20,000; while an additional one person identified that she received no
income. Again, although there was not a statistically significant difference, x2 (4) = 1.6, p
> .05, as shown in Figure 5, the non-B.C. sample was more likely to report a personal
income between $20,000 and $49,000, whereas the B.C. sample was more likely to report
a personal income of under $20,000.

82

Figure 5: Annual Personal Total Income of B.C. (n=33) versus non-B.C. (n=9) participants

8.2 Domestic Violence Experiences
Given that there were no statistically significant differences between the
demographic characteristics of the B.C. and non-B.C. sample, the majority of the
additional analyses were conducted using the full sample of 44 participants. In deciding
to retain the full sample, the author repeated each analysis split by B.C. and non-B.C. to
see if there were any significant differences occurring in the two samples, and since there
were not, the non-B.C. sample was included in the study, both for the sample size and
because the author could not be certain that the participants from the non-B.C. group did
not receive a protection order in B.C. before moving out of the province.
Although participants were not asked specific questions about the type of abuse
they had endured in the past, they were asked questions relating to when they were last
victimized, how long they were with this partner, their relationship status with the partner
that victimized her, and how long they were in the relationship when the violence started.
83

For three-quarters of participants, the last time they were victimized by an
intimate partner was over a year ago. Of the remaining 11 participants, four were
victimized within the last six months, while seven were last victimized between six
months and a year ago. At the time when the women were last victimized, participants
were overwhelmingly in an intimate partner relationship. Specifically, over a third
(36.4%) reported that they were in a common law relationship, 30% reported being in a
marital relationship, and 16% reported being in a dating relationship. Only seven
participants reported being either divorced (n=4, 9.1%) or separated (n=3, 6.8%).
The women reported that in their most recent relationships, where they were
victimized, they were in long-term relationships. Specifically, half of the women reported
that this relationship lasted five years or longer, while another quarter (27%) reported that
the relationship lasted between three and five years. Interestingly, nearly half of these
women (45.5%) reported that the violence in their relationship did not start more than a
year after their relationship began.
Both the length of the relationship and the length of time in the relationship before
the domestic violence began were recoded into three equal categories of 1=less than six
months, 2=between six months and a year, and 3=a year or longer. Analyses were then
performed for each group of relationship lengths separately. One woman reported being
in a relationship for less than six months; for this woman, the violence started virtually
immediately. Two women reported being in a relationship lasting between six and 12
months; for these women, one reported that the violence began within the first six months
and the second reported that it began within the last six months of the relationship. The
remaining 40 women reported being in a relationship for over a year. For a third of these

84

women (35%) the violence started within the first six months of the relationship, while
six women (15%) reported that it began in the second six months of the relationship.
Interestingly, half of the woman reported that the violence did not begin until at least a
year into the relationship.

8.3 Use of and Perceptions of Civil Protection Orders
The main research questions that this study sought to address included how many
women accessed protection orders, the descriptive characteristics associated with
applying for a protection order, the effect that protection orders had on the women’s
perceived level safety and well-being, and common challenges experienced during the
application process. Of the 42 women who answered these questions, 17 (40.5%)
reported that they had applied for at least one protection order in the past, this included
13 B.C. women and 4 non-B.C. women.
Given the small sample size, the demographic variables were recoded into a
smaller number of wide categories and then compared using a chi-square cross-tabulation
to determine whether or not a woman had previously applied for a protection order.
Despite some seemingly large between group differences, as displayed in Table 1, few of
the demographic variables were statistically related to whether a woman had applied for a
protection order in the past. This was likely due to the small cell counts given the overall
small number of participants. Still, two of the demographic variables did have a
statistically significant relationship with whether a woman had previously applied for a
protection order. Specifically, women who were currently unemployed, and women who
had been diagnosed with a physical disability were significantly more likely to have

85

Thirteen women responded to the question asking if someone had helped them in
the process of applying for the protection order. Of these women, the majority (77.6%)
reported that they had received assistance, and for nearly half of these women, the
assistance was provided by a lawyer (46.2%). Three women reported that the police had
helped them, and two-reported assistance from a victim services worker. The assistance
ranged from helping the women find the necessary application forms on the Internet,
assistance with filing out the paperwork, and providing emotional support in court.
The literature discusses that a hurdle in the application process is notifying the
subject of the pending court date, as coming in contact with the subject after filing a
protection order could jeopardize the woman’s safety (Benitez et al., 2010; Stoever,
2014). There are several ways that the subject of the protection order can be served with
the legal documents such as police, sheriffs, the victim’s family member or friends, or
through a third party delivery service. Four women reported paying someone to serve the
subject of the order, while another four used the police. One woman had a friend deliver
the order, while another had a community worker, and one used her lawyer. Two other
women recalled that the order was served in court.
As discussed in the literature review, in addition to protecting the victim a
protection order can protect people close to the victim. Over half (58.8%) the women
stated they applied for both herself and her children, while the remaining 41.2% applied
for just herself.

8.4 Perceptions of Safety and Quality of Life Afforded by Civil
Protection Orders
Women were asked to provide ratings of their perceived level of safety before,
during, and after the protection order was issued, as well as their perceived quality of life.
87

A five-point rating scale was used for both questions, where a 1=Very unsafe or very
poor and a 5=Very safe or very good. The vast majority of women felt unsafe (35.3%) or
very unsafe (47.1%) prior to receiving the protection order, and nearly three-quarters
reported a poor (58.8%) or very poor (11.8%) quality of life prior to the protection order.
Of note, an additional one-quarter (23.5%) felt okay about their quality of life prior to
receiving a protection order.
The women were invited to provide an explanation for these ratings. Regarding
perceptions of safety, one woman who reported feeling very unsafe noted, “[t]here were
no consequences for my ex’s actions. He would harass, intimidate, and bully me 24/7 if
he could”. Another woman who reported feeling very unsafe mentioned, “[m]y husband
was unpredictable and violent”. In discussing their quality of life before they had applied
for a protection order, a woman who reported a poor quality of life explained, “I was
extremely anxious and did not know when or where he would harass me next. I felt
controlled by him”. Another woman who reported a very poor quality of life when the
protection order was in place recalled:
He isolated me from family and friends and was physically, mentally, emotionally
and sexually abusive on a daily basis. He took away every ounce of self-worth
and self-esteem I had. I felt trapped with no one to turn to and nowhere to go. I
didn’t have any money either. I couldn’t do anything right and his mood swings
were crazy and I had to constantly be on guard. I wanted to die.
To assess whether the protection order had a positive effect on women’s
perceived levels of safety and perceived quality of life before and after the protection
order was issued, a paired samples t-test was performed with the before and after ratings.
It was hypothesized that the average ratings of perceived levels of safety and perceived
quality of life would increase following the issuance of the protection order. While the

88

“good” following the issuance of the protection order had taken significant action to
improve their ability to defend themselves, and had received support from others. For
instance, the women reported that they had moved towns to get away from their former
partner, had received substantial support from community providers and, in particular,
transition houses, or had put other safety measures in place. One woman reported, “I am
now trained in Russian MMA and self-defense, there is security on my home, I have a
protection dog, and I am ‘red-flagged’ by the RCMP”.
In contrast, the women who continued to report a poor quality of life following
the issuance of the protection order felt that there was a lack of support from the criminal
justice system. As an example, one participant felt, “[e]xtreme stress due to the constant
threat of violence” and reported a “[l]ack of judicial support. Police that don’t care or
say you are ‘making it up’ or belittle you for calling them when your partner is clearly
breaking the order”. Consequently, the women who rated their quality of life as poor
noted that they had to move regularly to protect themselves, as they believed that was the
only way they could stop the subject from contacting them.

8.5 Violations of Civil Protective Orders and Police and/or RCMP
Response
While the protection order was in place, half of the women had no direct contact
with the subject of the order, although for two of these eight women, their children
continued to have contact with the subject of the order. An additional three women had
only telephone or e-mail contact with the subject of the order. Of note, one-third (31.3%)
of the women observed that their partner either directly or indirectly violated the order,
by stalking them or attempting to contact them through other forms of communication.
Only one woman identified that her partner had only once violated the protection order;
90

instead, most women (87.5%) reported that their partner had violated the order several
times or repeatedly tried to violate the protection order, with four women noting it was
“too many to count” and two others identifying at least 10 previous attempted violations.
Surprisingly, an independent samples t-test did not find a statistically significant
difference in the average ratings of perceived safety while the protection order was in
place depending on whether the women reported that their partner had (X = 2.1, SD = 1.1)
or had not (X = 2.3, SD = 0.6) violated the order, t (13) = 0.4, p > .05. However, violation
status was related to quality of life perceptions, t (13) = 2.4, p < .05. Specifically, women
who reported that their partner had violated the protection order reported significantly
lower levels of quality of life (X = 2.3, SD = 1.1) compared to women who reported that
their partner had not violated the protection order (X = 4.0, SD = 1.0).
Half of the women reported these violations to the police every single time they
occurred, while another quarter reported them at least more than half of the time. Only
one woman stated she never reported the violations to the police. Despite the high rates of
reporting protection order violations to the police, nearly half of the women (46.7%)
reported that the police did not take any action against the subject of the order. Another
one-third reported that the police spoke to the violator, while three (20%) reported that
their partner had been arrested.
The women further described that police told them that the subject of complaint
was just outside the legal limits so it was not considered a formal breach. One woman
stated that she was told she was making too big a deal out of the situation, one woman
reported that she was belittled and ignored by the police, and one woman believed that
the police did not want to file a breach until her partner was seen physically violating the

91

order. The women reported that they did not feel that they were taken seriously, as they
reported the police were not willing to pursue further charges of breach or criminal
harassment, and one woman responded that she felt that calling the police and/or RCMP
only escalated the subject’s level of anger towards her. Not surprisingly then, when asked
to rate how the police response made them feel on a scale of 1=Very Unsafe to 5=Very
Safe, the average rating given by these women was a 2.3 (SD = 1.4). Over half of the
women felt very unsafe (40%) or unsafe (13.3%) after the police response, while onequarter (26.7%) felt okay.
A one-way ANOVA was used to test the effects of the police response on the
women’s perceived level of safety, and a statistically significant relationship was
identified, F(2, 12) = 16.6, p < .001. Not surprisingly, women who reported that police
did nothing to deal with the violator of the protection order were significantly less likely
to feel safe (X = 1.1, SD = 0.4) than both women who reported that the police spoke to
the subject (X = 3.4, SD = 1.1) and women who reported that the police arrested the
subject (X = 3.3, SD = 0.6). There was no statistically significant difference in average
perceived levels of safety when comparing women reporting that police arrested versus
police speaking to the subject.

8.6 Perceptions of Safety and Quality of Life Post-Civil Protection
Order Expiry
The women were asked whether their most recent protection order had expired,
and for over half (60%, n =9) it had. Eight women responded to the question of whether
they had been re-victimized by the subject of the expired protection order and six women
(75%) reported that they had been re-victimized. For two-thirds of the six women (67%)
who reported on the level of violence post-expiry compared to pre-protection order, the
92

were still in a relationship with the subject of the order, and all but one participant
reported that they had already taken or were in the process of taking steps to separate or
divorce from their partner while the protective order was in place.

8.7 Satisfaction with the Civil Protection Order Process
Women were asked to rate, on a scale where 1=Very Dissatisfied and 5=Very
Satisfied, how they felt about the process of applying for a protection order. The average
score was a 2.9, indicating that women generally felt “okay” about the process. Although
an independent samples t-test did not identify a statistically significant difference in the
average score between participants from B.C. (X = 2.8, SD = 0.8) and participants from
outside B.C. (X = 3.0, SD = 2.3), over half of the women from B.C. rated the process as
“okay”, whereas participants from outside B.C. were more likely to be either very
dissatisfied (50%, n=2) or very satisfied (50%, n=2).
When the women from B.C. were asked to explain why they felt this way, those
who observed the process was “okay” commented that it was expensive but well-worth it,
and another woman commented that although she received a protection order, sitting in
court can be time consuming. Those who were very or somewhat dissatisfied identified
having difficulty navigating the court system, having no legal support when they were in
court, and that the cost and stress of dealing with the subject was too much, especially
since their view of the protection order was that, “I felt like it was just a piece of paper,
that wouldn’t do anything to protect myself or my children”, as well as, “[i]t is an
absolutely useless system. A piece of paper doesn’t do anything. The police don’t care
and judges fail to apply consequences when orders are broken. The whole system is a
complete joke”. Of note, is that women who were satisfied with the application process

94

had gone through it before, with one observing, “I had already done it one year before.
The first time was horrendously difficult though, because I need to do them ex-parte, so
that there is no-contact between us”.
Many women had suggestions to improve the protection order system. The
suggestions included training court clerks to complete the paperwork both for standard
civil protection orders and ex-parte orders, and having a reverse onus on the subject so
that if he feels there should not be an order, he should need to justify why. Several
women commented that more enforcement action needed to be taken, as they were
harassed or abused while the protection order was in place.

8.8 Perceptions of Women Without Civil Protection Orders
Of the 44 participants, 25 of the participants had never applied for a protection
order. These women were asked some additional questions around the reasons why they
had not applied for a protection order and multiple women chose more than one response.
The most common reason, which was given by nearly half the participants, was that they
did not think that the violence was bad enough to need one (Figure 6). A concerning
finding was that the second most common reason for not applying for a protection order
against an intimate partner was that they did not know protection orders existed, a small
minority also stated that they did not know how to apply for a protection order, and that
they did not understand the process.

95

Figure 6: Reasons for Not Applying for a Protection Order Previously (n=25)

The women were also asked to select from a provided list what would make it
more likely that they would consider applying for a protection order in the future. The
most common answer was that women wanted to receive more information on the
consequences imposed when the subject of the order breaches the conditions. The second
most common answers were they wanted more information on the purpose of the order,
support in the application process, hearing about other women’s positive experiences
with using protection orders, and better co-ordination between civil protection orders and
other civil or criminal orders, including custody agreements and criminal orders with no
contact conditions.

96

Figure 7: Factors Increasing the Likelihood of Applying for a Protection Order in the Future (n=18)

8.9 Telephone Interviews with Women Affected by Domestic Violence
Although many women indicated at the end of the survey that they would like to
participate in the interview, in total only three women contacted the author to participate
in the in-depth telephone interviews, which lasted around 60 minutes for each participant.
Although the sample size is quite small, the women provided a rich range of observations
about protection orders and how they felt the protection orders affected their lives.
The themes that will be explored further include the effect protection orders have
on domestic violence victim’s perceptions of safety and well-being, any barriers the
women experienced in applying for protection orders, women’s experiences with
recidivism following a protection order being issued, the women’s experience with the
criminal justice system following a violation of the protection order, and the women’s
overall level of satisfaction with protection orders.

97

All three of the women revealed that they first became aware of protection orders
from a police officer, either after the police officer responded to the domestic violence
incident or when she contacted the municipal police and/or RCMP for assistance. The
majority of these women (67%) applied for a FLA protection order after her former
partner was either charged by the police for a criminal offence or after the police urged
her to apply for a protection order. After speaking with the other woman it became
apparent that her former partner is currently subject to a criminal order with a no contact
condition, but she mentioned that her family lawyer was going to help her apply for a
protection order once the criminal order expires.
The women had mixed experiences when applying for protection orders. One
woman reported it was positive for the most part, as she noted court clerks assisted her in
filing out the paper work and that they provided her with emotional support and
confidence that she would receive her order. This woman mentioned the service and
support she received was great but noted that despite applying for an ex parte order, she
had to wait in court for approximately five hours before she saw a judge.
Another woman described her process of applying for a protection order as such:
The first time it was hell. The Family Law Act clearly says that a person can do
an ex parte order, because the last thing you want to do is have contact with your
ex but it didn't work like that. I had to go to court, I didn't know what to expect or
where to go, I tried to get support from court staff when I was in the courthouse
but all I was told was to fill out the paperwork online. I was so upset and I tried
to talk to the court staff, because I didn't have a lawyer, and I tried to explain
that the process was confusing, they didn't really help. So, I went home and I
called court services in Victoria and I spoke with a man who worked in the court
system, but he told me that he wasn't really supposed to help me because it
wasn't within his job description to provide me with all that information. He
actually spent time with me on the phone and he told me how to fill out the
paperwork and he told me word for word what to write. The next day I went back
to the court house with all my paperwork, but it was still a struggle to connect
with the local court house and I fought with the court clerk for a few minutes
98

because she wouldn't process the paperwork, anyways I got the application in.
The second time I applied, after the first protection order expired, it was a piece
of cake because I knew what to do.
When speaking about their satisfaction with the application process, one woman
disclosed, “I’m satisfied as I can be. I understand the orders limitations and the
limitations of the law, because at the end of the day it’s just a piece of paper and it won’t
stop him from coming for me. But, I will continue to apply for a protection order because
I do receive support from service providers, especially the RCMP”. The other woman
noted that she was satisfied with court staff but again stated she had to wait for over five
hours to see a judge, saying, “I was satisfied with the professionals involved, everyone
was helpful, but it took a long time. I can imagine other women who are in my situation
and if they have to wait five hours just to see a judge, with no hope that a protection
order will be approved, they would leave”. When she appeared before the judge she
explained her experience as, “when I got to the court room, I felt like I had to beg the
judge to grant the protection order”.
To improve the process of applying for FLA protection orders one woman noted:
The process of applying was okay but that's only because I'm decently educated,
and I was willing to take it upon myself to research information about protection
orders and the process to get one. I was also persistent and read the Family Law
Act. My concerns is for marginalized women and women with barriers because I
know the struggle I had to go through to get one and there is no way that they
[marginalized women] could do it on their own. I feel for women who are
marginalized, who struggle with other issues, and who don't have any advocates
and if those types of women are trying to apply for protection orders then its
horrendous process. It took me awhile to figure out how to apply, the problem is
the Family Law Act is written in legalise and if women don't have the capacity to
overcome some of the other issues they are facing they will be in trouble.
When asked about how safe the women felt before, during, and after the
protection order expired, all stated that the protection order is a ‘piece of paper’, and that

99

they never felt safe with just a protection order. One woman reported that she applied for
a protection order because she felt it was a ‘trail’ of evidence that she believed would
help inform police officers that the situation was serious and that they needed to treat it as
such, saying:
It’s just a piece of paper, all I’m hoping for is it gets the police to act faster when
I call them. I don’t think it made me feel safer, it just got things moving and I
have access to help. Since I live in a smaller community and I know them, when I
call, either the police are there immediately or shortly after I make the call.
Before getting the protection order, it took a lot for members to respond and at
times they would not respond until twenty minutes or later, which really could be
the difference between life and death.
Another woman spoke to the fact that her former partner had a history of criminal
offences and due to that reason she believed that the protection order had limited effect,
saying:
I didn’t ever feel safe with the protection order. I didn’t feel safe being anywhere
local, because he was stalking me and he didn’t give a s—t about the protection
order, it’s a piece of paper. At that point he was convicted of assault as well, so
he didn’t really care. When I got the protection order he went into hiding, the
RCMP couldn’t find him, but he was still trying to contact me, it meant nothing
to him.
Although the women did not feel that the protection order afforded them safety it
is intriguing to note that one of the women stated that having the order in place helped
put her at ease, as she stated it was nice to have a legal boundary so that police could act
when she reported a violation. The other women noted that protection order did not affect
their quality of life, with one reporting, “it stayed the same. Realistically what's the
protection order going to do; it’s a piece of paper. If he's going to do something, that
[protection order] won't stop him. It was never off my mind, like I couldn't sleep
peacefully, it's almost like looking over your shoulder”.

100

Overall, two of the three women did not feel the protection order provided them
with a level of support, with one saying:
I don't think it really did anything. If anything he got worse, it was almost like a
how dare you I can't believe you're doing this to me. So that is when he started
harassing me through texts and e-mails. What really helped me were victim
services they were wonderful. They were more supportive than the RCMP but I
understand that the RCMP are busy, but they're important because they're the
enforcement piece.
The other woman was frustrated by the limits of the law, saying that the protection order
is a ‘piece of paper’, although she did note in her case that it got the police to respond
more quickly to violations.
All the women noted that their former partner violated the protection order
numerous times, with one woman recalling:
When my ex-partner was first arrested in July 2012, he was a known stalker and
he breached his criminal order multiple times, but after all the breaches he got
smart and now he stands 51 or 102 meters away from me. He still tries to
intimidate me and he approaches my extended family. I reported the violations
each time, but my interaction with the RCMP and violations of protection orders
has been horrendous. Again, I understand the limits of the law and it was
difficult for RCMP members to proceed with charges. When he did breach
because he would often wear sunglasses or a hoodie the RCMP would say the
violation wouldn’t stand up in court because, how did I know it was him, so they
said they couldn't do anything and the violations wouldn't be approved so they
weren't willing to put in the work when they knew something wouldn't go through
or they would tell me that they would put a note in my file. My ex-partner had
more serious behaviour, he broke into my house and kicked my dog so hard in
the stomach and the vet said judging by the force and how much damage was
done whoever did it was close to my dog. I told RCMP that my dog is an inside
dog and my ex-partner is known to commit break and enters, but the RCMP said
they couldn't prove it was my ex-partner. He also slashed my new partner’s
vehicle tires and I told the RCMP it could only be my ex-partner but the RCMP
said they couldn't do anything.
Two out of the three women reported the violations each time they occurred, but one did
not because she disclosed, “a lot of women fear that if they call the police and the police
end up arresting your partner he's only likely going to be held for twenty-four hours then
101

he’s let go and he’s angry because you called the police and it makes things worse.
There's no point, calling the police, it only stops it [violence] then but when he's released
it's going to be worse”.
The women reported the police and/or RCMP response to the violations was
mixed. Two of the women reported that their violations were not dealt with and the police
stated they could not proceed with a breach charge as there was not enough information,
or the women felt that the police did not want to do the paperwork when they knew
Crown Counsel would not accept the breach.
In terms of recommendations these women had to improve protection orders, their
responses ranged from adding extended family, that do not reside with the victim, as no
contacts on the protection order, providing more support for women during the
application process, more enforcement of the conditions, and stricter custodial sentences.
One woman discussed the changes she wanted to see as:
It would be to change to the law and the way police and the justice system deal
with abusers. Realistically he assaulted me and got thirty days in jail and then he
just spiralled out of control. He seemed to get it together when he got with his
new girlfriend and the whole cycle started again, but for assaulting her what did
he get, he got forty-five days in jail. That’s the problem there needs to be harsher
sentences. There also needs to be more police support. In the beginning after the
incident the police stayed with me at my house for two and a half hours. One
member helped board up my back door, so he [former partner] couldn't get back
in. I felt more safe when the police were around, but they would only come if
something happened. Why do we have to wait for my door to be kicked down and
he [former partner] be in my home. When I called the police and told them about
his long history of abuse, the police said we can't do anything until he’s
physically there. That's the scariest thing about domestic violence, you're
basically waiting around for him to do something and the police won't act until
he does something. Police policy needs to change, they need to do more. When
an incident happens they should circle the house for a bit to make sure he doesn't
come back or when they [intimate partner] do breach, police should actually
come by to check if he's around and actually charge them with breach. I just felt
like I was a file number.

102

Due to their experiences only one woman reported that she would re-apply for a
FLA protection order. Another woman noted she would not re-apply as she did not feel
the protection order helped her; rather she felt it was a negative influence on her former
partner, and she strongly felt that police did not act on breaches of the order, which,
combined, resulted in threats to her safety. In regards to safety planning, two of the
women engaged in the process and felt that it was the key to ensuring their safety.

8.9.1 Telephone Interviews with Service Providers
In total, five service providers reached out to the author to participate in the semistructured in-depth telephone interviews, which lasted approximately 30 minutes for each
participant. The participant’s years of service in their positions ranged from one year to
over 20 years and their work related duties in regards to domestic violence ranged from
providing victims information about protection orders, helping women during the court
process, referring victims to community agencies, and enforcing or applying for criminal
orders. Overall, the service providers interviewed were not as knowledgeable about
protection orders as they were about criminal orders with no contact conditions, but they
did say having any protection orders was better for the victim to have than nothing.
For the service providers, the shared themes that came up were the limited
knowledge of protection orders by various service providers, the effectiveness of
protection orders to reduce recidivism, challenges with flow of information between
service providers, and difficultly accessing the Protection Order Registry.
Some of the service providers (40%), noted that FLA protection orders can be
quite confusing for their colleagues, as they have little training in the area of FLA
protection orders and they do not have enough experience or knowledge with such orders

103

as their main focus is on criminal orders with no contact conditions. They noted that they
do tell women to apply for FLA protection orders, only if their organization cannot apply
for criminal orders. Further, one service provider noted that her organization does not
help women apply for FLA protection orders as, “no, because it makes it really grey,
because if we think there's enough information or evidence we should be filing a no
contact criminal order, because if something happens to her and we knew about I would
wear that”.
In regards to which order, civil protection order or criminal orders with no contact
conditions, take precedence when both are in place at the same time, none of the service
providers were sure, but the majority (80%), stated they would follow the criminal order.
The main reason service providers were inclined to follow the criminal order with the no
contact condition was that they stated there is an enforcement clause in the criminal
orders, which service providers noted was not always clear with the protection orders,
and one service provider mentioned, “the civil order, most of the time they’re confusing,
we don’t know if they are still in effect, there’s confusion about understanding the order,
so if there’s a criminal order our members go with that”.
None of the service providers found any benefit with having both orders in effect
at the same time; instead they noted it tends to be confusing as they are not sure which
order takes precedence. Some service providers (40%), stated that having both order in
place at the same time is not helpful reporting:
Just the confusion. The number one challenge for front line officers is to confirm
the validity of orders and they’re on a twenty-four hour clock, so their shift time
is running out, so we need information right away. Then trying to understand the
order, trying to confirm that it’s in effect and that we can enforce it, and to be
honest a lot of front line members are not familiar with civil protection or family
law court orders.
104

In regards to accessing the Protection Order Registry, one service provider noted
there are ways of finding out information to discover a historical pattern, but stated it is
not common knowledge among her colleagues, saying, “a lot of members don't do that
because we're trained for the criminal side of orders and it's been said that police don't
deal with civil matters. I'm sure there's a lot of civil orders out there but we're not making
sure they're being followed”. Service providers also discussed the challenges associated
with the Protection Order Registry as, “it can take a while and sometimes when you're out
on a call and it's the middle of the night and you need to act fast, it's just too much
rigmarole”. In regards to violations of protection orders 60% of service providers stated
they have never encountered the issue, while 40% noted that they have had very limited
experience with violations, and one remarked, “if there’s an enforcement clause we can
arrest, but the hard part is finding out if that clause is there”.
When discussing FLA protection orders’ ability to reduce recidivism for domestic
violence on a scale of 1=Not effective, to 5=Very effective, service providers’ responses
ranged from 2=A little effective (40%), to 4=Effective, (20%). The service providers who
rated protection orders as ineffective remarked, “based on the fact that if the offender is
committed to do it [breach order or attack women] he's going to do it. I’ve seen many
men with the revenge ideologies, they are relentless, and they won't stop, and nothing
will stop them, so they're going to do it anywhere. This is especially the case for men that
have had contact with the justice system before, and they are hardened”. The majority of
the service providers believed protection orders worked best for men with no previous
criminal history, where a criminal order would not be issued, on men who have no
negative experiences with the police, and on men who are afraid of criminal charges.

105

When discussing the ability of criminal orders with no contact conditions, to
reduce recidivism for domestic violence on a scale of 1=Not effective, to 5=Very
effective, 20% of service providers answered 2=A little effective (20%), nearly half
(40%) answered 3=Somewhat effective, and another 20% answered 4=Effective. The
service provider who rated criminal orders as 4=Effective, stated, “it’s because we can
keep track of the conditions, we have specific cars designed to curfew check and we have
red flags on files so we can do drive bys to check that the guys are not at the house. We
have more involvement and that’s what makes it more effective”. While the service
provider who rated criminal orders as 3=Somewhat effective noted, “this is because in
domestic violence cases there is a strong tie between the offender and victims, often
children are involved, and that’s the offender’s home that they lived in and now he can’t
be there. Also, in a lot of cases the victim needs financial support”. The service provider
that rated criminal orders as 2=A little effective mentioned, “they are only effective to
those suspects who are worried about becoming criminally charged. Protection orders
will never solve the issue of domestic violence, as many victims have been killed by their
partners even with these orders in place”. Again, all the service providers noted that
criminal orders work best for offenders who are afraid of the law, men who have not had
any negative experiences with the law, and men who are low risk to-reoffend.
In regards to barriers in their community for women to apply for civil protection
orders one service provider aptly observed that:
Especially for marginalized women that don't have access to transportation,
which really sucks in this town, how are they going to get to a courthouse in
another city. If she's a single parent, she can't take time off of work to get to
court. The courthouse hours are open during business hours, which is difficult
for most people because they work. There are many barriers, how does someone

106

articulate fear, they [victims of domestic violence] need help with that because
they're scattered and don't know how to explain why they are scared.
Other service providers spoke about the disconnect between different community
agencies in regards to information flow, and about the lack of support to help women
apply for protection orders, without a lawyer.
In terms of changes to the current system, service provider’s suggestions ranged
from more cohesiveness between community agencies in terms of information sharing,
ease of access to information and connection to the Protection Order Registry, informing
women before a protection order expires that it is about to expire, the court registry being
open longer, and more education being made available to victims about protection orders
and their options. One service provider remarked:
There needs to be a larger time frame or more days the courthouse is open, they
should be open at least until eight or nine p.m. So someone doing shifts can get
there and doesn't have to take time off work. If a women is a single parent and
works to put food on the table for her kids and doesn't have adequate
transportation to the court registry or courthouse, they [court services] need to
accommodate her because if she's working and trying to feed her kids she's not
going to take the day off to apply for an order that she might not get. I think they
[court services] need to get satellite offices. There needs to be someone that
helps women fill out the paper work because again sometimes it's hard to
articulate what fear is. They did resolve the issue with serving orders, I think
Sheriffs do it, but when the partner is not served who tells him he has an order
against him, so that needs to be changed too.
Another service provider commented:
There needs to be an ease of access of information to police with the Protection
Order Registry, there needs to be quick verification that protection orders are in
place because a lot of time you go to these houses and a woman says she has one
[protection order] but doesn’t have the papers and she says he [partner] can’t be
there. We really can’t do much if we don’t have access to the order, and in
general there needs to be more training for police on the variety of different
protection orders.

107

When speaking about the flow of information between different government
agencies, such as the MCFD, Ministry of Justice, RCMP, and municipal police agencies,
all service providers stated there are issues. All spoke about challenges in regards to
confidentiality and how certain organizations and service providers are reluctant to share
information. One service provider lamented about MCFD’s centralized screening process
and noted it was not uncommon for her colleagues to be on hold for over 30 minutes.

Chapter 9.0 Discussion
The author hypothesized that victims of domestic violence, who applied for a civil
protection order, would perceive that their level of safety and quality of life, or wellbeing, would increase after issuance of a civil protection order, police and/or RCMP
response to violations or breaches of the conditions increased the women’s perceived
level of safety, and overall the women, who applied civil protection order, would be
satisfied with the level of support as afforded by the order.
Utilizing an exploratory and descriptive research design, the study set out to
explore the ability of civil protection orders to affect domestic violence victim’s
perception of safety. As mentioned, the Canadian literature on this topic is limited and in
general it is quite scarce, and so this study adds to the limited research available on this
topic. Other countries, namely the United States, have conducted studies on civil and
criminal protection order’s ability to protect victims, promote victim’s well-being, and
reduce recidivism; however, these studies have produced inclusive results on the orders
effectiveness.
In terms of demographic characteristics of women who apply for a protection
order, it was discovered through the online survey that the women who were more likely
108

to apply for protection orders were women with physical disabilities and women who
were unemployed. In terms of the literature, women who have physical disabilities are at
a higher risk of violence (British Columbia, 2015; British Columbia, 2016; Burczycka,
2016; Disability Alliance BC, 2016; Statistics Canada, 2016), so perhaps this could
explain why this subtype of women are more apt to apply for such orders. It is unusual
that women in the study who identified as unemployed tended to apply for protection
orders more, as research shows that financial dependence is a reason why many women
remain in such relationships (British Columbia, 2015; British Columbia, 2016; British
Columbia’s Coroners Services, 2016). However, it has been reported in studies that
women with the lowest levels of educational attainment and lower income levels,
$30,000 or less, were more likely to say that they contacted the police for assistance
(Sinha, 2013).
The online survey and in-depth telephone interviews revealed an interesting
finding through a paired samples t-test. It was hypothesized that women who applied for
and received a protection order would show an increase in their perceived level of safety;
while the mean scores for both groups increased, the change was not statistically
significant. One reason for this is that many women reported feeling that the protection
order was just ‘a piece of paper’, and some of the women, who disclosed that their
partners already had lengthy criminal histories, stated the men were not deterred by the
order and so he would frequently breach the conditions. In the in-depth telephone
interviews, one woman mentioned that when she applied for a protection order her former
partner took the act as some type of betrayal and began to stalk and harass her. Perhaps a
reason why the women did not feel safe with the protection order is because they felt the

109

protection order sent their partner over the edge. Likewise, the literature also suggests
that when women apply for protection orders it can lead to an escalation of violence
(Benitez et al., 2010; Cooper, 2012; Logan & Walker, 2009; Russell, 2012).
Using paired t-tests, the women’s ratings of perceived quality of life was
compared during the time their protection order was in place to after their protection
order expired. There was a statistically significant relationship between the average
ratings of quality of life during the protection order compared to once the protection order
had expired, with participants reporting an increase in quality of life post-protection order
expiry. This finding could be because women felt they had done what they could to
protect themselves, and were subsequently self-assured that they put safety measures in
place to protect themselves, which could lead to a sense of empowerment.
Another noteworthy fact is the women who felt their quality of life was either
“okay” or “good” following the issuance of the protection order had taken significant
action to improve their ability to defend themselves, and had received support from
others. For instance, the women reported that they had moved towns to get away from
their former partner, had received substantial support from the community providers and,
in particular, transition houses, or had put other safety measures in place such as learning
to physically defend themselves and installing security cameras around their homes.
In contrast, the women who continued to report a poor quality of life following
the granting of the protection order felt that there was a lack of support from the criminal
justice system. Consequently, the women who rated their quality of life as poor noted that
they had to move regularly to protect themselves, as they believed that was the only way
they could stop the subject from contacting them.

110

In terms of how satisfied women were with the application process for protection
orders, the average score was a 2.9 on a 5 level scale, indicating that generally the women
felt “okay” about the process. The women commented that the process was expensive but
well-worth it, but the time spent in court was described as time consuming. Those who
were very or somewhat dissatisfied identified having difficulty navigating the court
system, having no legal support when in court, and noted that the cost and stress of
dealing with the subject was too much. Of note, women who were satisfied with the
application process had gone through the process before, indicating that once women are
able to overcome the initial difficulties the process becomes easier for subsequent
applications.
Another issue that has been discussed in the literature and what this study found
was the fact that when women report violations of the order to the police, the violations
were not always responded to. In this study, half the women reported violations to the
police every single time they occurred, while another quarter reported them at least more
than half of the time. Despite the high reporting rate of violations to the police, nearly
half of the women (46.7%) stated that the police did not take any action against the
subject of the order and some women stated police and/or RCMP claimed the women
were making too big a deal out of the violation, which left the women feeling belittled
and ignored. Accordingly, when asked to rate how the police response made them feel on
a scale of 1=Very Unsafe to 5=Very Safe, the average rating given by these women was a
2.3 (SD = 1.4). Over half of the women felt very unsafe (40%) or unsafe (13.3%) after the
police response, while one-quarter (26.7%) felt okay.

111

A statistically significant finding where women who reported that police did
nothing to deal with the violator of the protection order were significantly less likely to
feel safe than both women who reported that the police spoke to the subject and women
who reported that the police arrested the subject. There was no statistically significant
difference in average perceived levels of safety when comparing women reporting that
police arrested versus spoke to the subject. It was interesting to note that arresting the
subject and police talking to the subject had the same effect on the women’s perceptions
of safety. This suggests that when police officers are not able to file a formal breach that
if they are able to simply talk to the subject about the violation it also increases the
women’s perception of safety. This could have a positive effect on the women’s
perception of the police as it could contribute to more women reporting such violations,
increase the women’s confidence that the criminal justice system will support her and it
would also show the subject that he is being monitored so he should heed the order or
risk facing the consequences.
Violation status was also related to quality of life perceptions, specifically,
women who reported that their partner had violated the protection order reported
significantly lower levels of quality of life compared to women who reported that their
partner had not violated the protection order. This feeling could be due to the women
believing that they had tried a different protective measure, yet the subject’s behaviour
and to an extent the criminal justice system’s response to the subject’s actions remained
somewhat similar to before they had the protection order in place.
Of the 44 participants in the online survey, 25 of the participants had never
applied for a protection order. A concerning finding was revealed in the second most

112

common reason for not applying for a protection order against an intimate partner was
that these women did not know protection orders existed. This finding suggests there
needs to be more in the way of disseminating information about protection orders.
The participants in the online study were also asked what would make it more
likely that they would consider applying for a protection order in the future. The most
common answer was that women wanted to receive more information on the
consequences imposed when the subject of the order breaches the conditions. The second
most common answers were they wanted more information on the purpose of the order,
support in the application process, hearing about other women’s positive experiences
with using protection orders, and better co-ordination between civil protection orders and
other civil or criminal orders, including custody agreements and criminal orders with no
contact conditions. Again this finding suggests that there needs to be more done in terms
of disseminating information about protection orders and the potential outcomes.
The common themes for the service provider interviews centered on service
providers requiring more training, clarity, and in general more information about
protection orders. In terms of the efficacy of protection orders, service providers voiced
that some domestic violence victims required more than civil and criminal protection
orders to protect themselves and stated this is especially the case for victims whose
former partner is an offender with a lengthy criminal history, is considered high risk to
re-offend against the victim, and had prior negative interactions with the police. The
service providers spoke about frustrations with the Protection Order Registry. They spoke
about the need for more ease of access to protection orders and for more flow of
information between service providers and organizations.

113

Chapter 10.0 Recommendations and Policy Implications
10.1 Recommendations
Based on the online survey and in-depth telephone interviews, it is evident that
there is room for improvement in terms of the application process, enforcement, and
increasing collaborative practices of different organizations to better assist victims of
domestic violence.
The women who disclosed they had not applied for a protection order revealed
that they did not know such orders existed. This suggests that there needs to be more in
the way of disseminating the information that protection orders exist. Possible solutions
to increase awareness could include media campaigns, more pamphlets about protection
orders need to be distributed in public places such as the public library, recreational
centres, doctor’s offices, hospitals, places of worship, Laundromats, grocery stores, and
in schools as it would inform young people about domestic violence and the potential
safety measures should they find themselves in such relationships. These pamphlets
should be in a variety of different languages, outline the consequences imposed when the
subject of the order breaches the conditions, and they should include testimonials from
women who have utilized protection orders discussing their positive experiences.
In regards to the application process, it was discovered from both the online
survey and telephone interviews that most women still find it a daunting process to
engage in as they are in crisis mode and they often have a difficult time articulating what
they are going through. Thus, these women require support in filing out the necessary
paperwork and they require emotional assistance while they are in court. It is reasonable
to expect that a lawyer could assist in this process; however, as the online survey
114

indicated many of the women in B.C. have a yearly income under $20,000 and they may
not know how to go about the process of applying for legal aid services or this could
cause them to become overwhelmed. Therefore, service providers should provide as
much assistance as possible. Another way to support the women would be to extend the
hours of operation for courthouses or court services, as it was identified that many
victims cannot afford to take time off work to apply for a protection order during regular
business hours.
Addressing the issue of enforcement, many of the women on the online survey as
well as the in-depth interviews discussed their frustration with the police response when a
subject of a protection order violates the order. A majority of the women noted that
although they reported the violation frequently, in some cases each time they occurred,
women noted that the police did not respond to their concerns. In terms of increasing the
women’s perceived level of safety, the study revealed there was no statistically
significant difference when police would talk to the subject or arrest the subject, meaning
that police can easily take action that supports the victim and increases their perceived
level of safety. This suggests that police agencies could benefit from more education
about protection orders and how to proceed when they are made aware of violations.
The service providers also commented on the difficulty some of them have in
regards to finding out if a protection order is still valid. A recommendation in this case
would be to follow other provinces in Canada’s lead and start to input civil protection
orders on CPIC. This would save time, confusion, and possibly save lives as police would
not only be able to see if the orders are still valid, but they will be able to see relevant
conditions, and determine if there is a pattern of domestic violence in the subject’s

115

history that did not result in criminal proceedings allowing for quicker judgments when
responding to domestic violence incidents.
Another issue service provider's and some victims of domestic violence voiced
was the fact that protection orders do not seem to have a deterrent effect on subjects who
have criminal histories, prior negative interaction with the police, offenders who are highrisk to re-offend, and offenders who are not afraid of criminal consequences. In these
cases, protection orders should not take the brunt of the blame, as protection orders
should be included in an overall safety plan. The women in the study who rated their
quality of life and well-being as “okay” after they received a protection order stated they
put external safety measures in place to further protect themselves. It is recommended
that each woman clearly understand the limits of a protection order and that they should
be assisted with creating a safety plan that is unique to her situation. That being said
applying the deterrence theory on enforcement of protection orders with subjects who
seem to exhibit a lack of concern for the law, consequences need to be swift, severe, and
certain. This means that if a subject is breaching a protection order the police need to act
each and every time to show the subject that his behaviour is unacceptable and it will not
be tolerated by the victim or the criminal justice system.
Service providers also pointed out problems associated with information sharing
between various organizations. They noted that each organization has its own protocol
and procedures in place regarding confidentiality, which at times can be a hindrance to
case management purposes as the flow of information is impeded until organizations
complete the necessary release of information protocols. Some service providers noted
that specialized police units and teams such as the DVU and ICAT’s can share

116

information for high-risk cases. Therefore, it is recommended that this team collaboration
should be available for all domestic violence files because victim safety should take
precedence.

10.2 Research Limitations
Despite the use of an exploratory and descriptive research design this study was
not without limitations. One specific limitation was the small sample size for all
participant groups. Overall, 44 women affected by domestic violence participated in the
online survey, three women affected by domestic violence participated in the telephone
interview, and five service providers participated in the telephone interview. The author
did reach out to various women’s groups, police departments, RCMP offices, Crown
Counsel, courthouses, and MCFD social workers to help disseminate the study to their
clients and to front line workers however; many did not do so. Accordingly, the author
was not able to conduct as many interviews as originally anticipated.
The design of the online survey could have also contributed to the low response
rate and explain why a particular group of women decided to participate in the survey.
The demographics of the online survey included older women, whose experience could
have been very different from younger women; this could be because older women may
have been in a better space to talk about their experiences, or because they may have
been able to leave the abusive relationship.
The literature identifies that Indigenous, younger, minority, immigrant, and
physical disabled women are at greater risk for domestic violence by an intimate partner;
however, very few members from these groups participated in the study. This could have
been due to a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the online survey and

117

telephone interviews being conducted in English, some women not having access to a
computer or the Internet to complete the survey, some women not having access to a
telephone, and some of the women may have still been in a relationship with their
abusive partner.
In regards to the service providers, the author contacted a wide variety of service
providers throughout the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley, but many organizations
did not participate. Some noted they were short staffed and said they would not allow
their employees to participate in the interviews during work hours, they needed to
conduct their own ethical review of the study which could have taken a couple months or
longer, some of the organizations wanted the author to make changes to the interview
questions, and some organizations stated it was against their policy for employees to
speak about their particular organization. Due to those reasons, the author was not able to
conduct as many telephone interviews with service providers as originally planned.
Despite these limitations, the study offers a number of suggestions for future research.

10.3 Social and Criminal Justice Policy Implications
In the study many women revealed that they did not apply for a protection order,
as they simply were not aware such orders existed. This is concerning, and the first step
in improving women’s access and knowledge of protection orders would be to start
increasing women’s awareness of such orders through media campaigns and through the
creation and distribution of pamphlets explaining protection orders.
In terms of the application process for protection orders, several women noted
they had difficulties navigating the court system and one woman commented that she was
able to do this only because she was decently educated and persistent. This comment is

118

alarming, as this woman believed that marginalized women in her situation would not be
able to apply for those reasons. Many women had suggestions to improve the application
process including training court clerks to complete the paperwork both for standard civil
protection orders and ex-parte orders, as many women find navigating the court system
daunting. B.C. should heed the protocol of other provinces that allow service providers,
or relatives of the victim to apply for the orders on the women’s behalf. This would
immensely help the women, as it would take the stress of applying off her shoulders and
allow her to focus on other safety plan measures.
A factor to consider, for court services, is increasing or changing their hours of
operation to accommodate women who are working to support themselves and their
children. It was noted in the study that if women have to take time off work to attend
court, they would not do so as they cannot afford to. Also, women suggested having a
reverse onus on the subject so that if he feels there should not be an order he should
justify why. This makes sense because if a victim is brave enough to come forward and
make an application it should not rest on her to argue why she requires protection but the
subject should have to explain why such an order is not justifiable.
Additional beneficial conditions on protection orders that are common in other
provinces include allowing the victims extended family to be placed on the order as no
contacts, as studies have shown that subjects tend to harass the victim’s family members
once a protection order is in place (Bradford et al., 2004; Sinha, 2013; Smith & Morra,
1994), mandatory weapons prohibition for the subject for a period of time, and if it is safe
allowing the women to remain in the home and have the subject relocate.

119

In terms of policy changes, in regards to enforcement, the study found that there
was no statistically significant difference in terms of women’s perceived level of safety
when police would talk to the subject of a violation or arrest the subject. This means that
when police are made aware of a violation of a protection order that they at least speak to
the subject of the order as it supports the victim.
The study and literature conveys the persistent nature of some offenders and the
high likelihood of violations, in those cases service providers should assist women in
creating comprehensive safety plans and measures. As the deterrence theory suggests for
offenders who have criminal history, little to no regard for the law, and are not dissuaded
by the possibility of further criminal consequences the police response should be certain,
swift, and severe. This adds support to the fact that if anything police need to speak to the
offender and make it known to him that he is being watched and his actions will get him
into further trouble. Policy changes to police agencies would include more education for
officers around protection orders and how to respond when violations of the order occur.
Also, as some service providers discussed the difficulty in accessing information
from the Protection Order Registry, B.C. should follow the lead of other Canadian
provinces that import all their protection orders on CPIC. This would help police officers
verify the order, save time, confusion, and possibly save lives.
Policy considerations in terms of collaborative information sharing needs to be
amended, to include sharing information on all domestic violence cases and not just on
high risk cases. This information sharing should follow suit of DVU and ICAT protocols.

120

10.4 Directions for Future Research
To further our understanding of protection orders and how they affect domestic
violence victims, the first step would be to systematically collect detailed accounts of
how many women apply for protection orders, their demographic characteristics, what
additional safety measures the women have put in place, the characteristics of the subject,
and how many times the orders are violated. This information could help determine what
community based programs and victim’s outreach services need to be developed to assist
victims and subjects better.
Since survey participants who did not apply for protection orders revealed that
they were unaware such orders existed, it would be beneficial to focus on outreach
programs that address the gap between awareness and access, and ensure that these
programs are promoted in multiple languages and made available in well-known areas.
It would be useful to conduct comparison studies on Canadian provinces that
place protection orders on CPIC to determine if there is a higher rate of enforcement of
orders that are available on CPIC and if there are higher levels of satisfaction with police
response from victims in those communities. Another useful avenue that could help
determine recidivism rates for protection orders would be to partner with hospitals,
emergency rooms, and clinics as research has showed that women tend to first seek
medical attention for their injuries rather than report them to the police.
There should also be more studies determining the effectiveness of inter-agency
communication regarding the release of information in regards to domestic violence
cases. A study of DVU and ICAT’s could help create policy that allows for more

121

memorandums of agreements of release of information in all domestic violence cases and
not just those deemed high risk.

Chapter 11.0 Conclusion
Increasing access to protection orders has its barriers, and navigating the justice
system can be frustrating, time-consuming, demeaning, and often ineffective procedurally
in terms of achieving the desired outcomes for women who experience domestic
violence. The study identified some of the barriers women face in obtaining protection
orders, the study also discussed the need for strong and consistent enforcement of
protection orders by members of the criminal justice system coupled with compressive
safety plans to enhance the effectiveness of protective orders, and more collaborative
information sharing between various organizations. Solutions on how protective orders
could be improved include increasing access and awareness about protection orders,
increasing protection order effectiveness via consistent enforcement and thorough safety
planning, and more collaboration between service providers in terms of information
sharing.

122

References
Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. (2014). Domestic violence handbook: For police
and Crown Prosecutors in Alberta. Retrieved from
http://open.alberta.ca/dataset/f3319ecb-60b4-41d2-a3352f05c8c50a3c/resource/a48368aa-3c26-4c80-861744cca7819308/download/2014-DomesticViolenceHandbook.pdf
Allen, M. (2014). Victim services in Canada, 2011/12. Retrieved from Statistics Canada
website: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11899-eng.pdf
Ammar, N., Couture-Carron, A., Alvi, S., & San Antonio, J. (2014). Experiences of
Muslim and non-Muslim battered immigrant women with the police in the United
States: A closer understanding of the commonalities and differences. Violence
Against Women, 19, 1449-1471. doi:10.1177/1077801213517565
Ansara, D. L. & Hindin, M. J. (2011). Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner
violence for women and men in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26,
1628-1645. doi:10.1177/0886260510370600
Apsler, R., Cummins, M. R., & Carl, S. (2003). Perceptions of the police by female
victims of domestic partner violence. Violence Against Women, 9, 1318-1335.
doi:10.1177/1077801203255554
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Barata, P. C. (2007). Abused women’s perspectives on the criminal justice system’s
response to domestic violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 202-215.
Beaupre, P. (2015). Cases in adult criminal courts involving intimate partner violence.
123

Retrieved from Statistics Canada website: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002x/2015001/article/14203-eng.pdf
Benitez, C. T., McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2010). Do protection orders protect?
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 38(3), 376385.
Block, C.R. (2003). How can practitioners help an abused woman lower her risk of
death? National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 4-7.
Bonomi, A., Holt, V., Martin, D., & Thompson, R. (2006). Severity of intimate partner
violence and occurrence and frequency of police calls. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 21, 1354-1364. doi:10.1177/0886260506291656
Bradford, B., Bruce, M., Humble, A., & Berglund, D. (2004). Herstory of woman abuse
and the PEI justice system. Retrieved from
http://fvps.ca/womanabuseresearch/peifinal.pdf
Brame, R., Kaukinen, C., Gover, A. R., & Lattimore, P. K. (2015). No-contact orders,
victim safety, and offender recidivism in cases of misdemeanor criminal domestic
violence: A randomized experiment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40,
225-249. doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9242-x
Brennan, S. (2011). Violence victimization of Aboriginal women in the Canadian
provinces, 2009. Retrieved from Statistics Canada website:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11439-eng.pdf
Brewster, M.P. (2001). Legal help-seeking experiences of former intimate-stalking
victims. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 91-112.
doi:10.1177/0887403401012002001

124

British Columbia. (n.d.A). Family law explained. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/justice/about-bcs-justicesystem/legislation-policy/legislation-updates/family-law-act/the-family-law-actexplained
British Columbia. (n.d.B). Information on protection orders. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/crime-prevention/protection-orderregistry/qa
British Columbia. (2010A). Domestic violence response: A community framework for
maximizing women’s safety. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/victimsof-crime/vs-info-for-professionals/info-resources/domestic-violence-response.pdf
British Columbia. (2010B). Violence against women in relationships policy. Retrieved
from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminaljustice/victims-of-crime/vs-info-for-professionals/info-resources/vawir.pdf
British Columbia. (2013). For your protection: Peace bonds and Family Law protection
orders. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-andjustice/criminal-justice/bc-criminal-justice-system/if-victim/publications/peacebonds-english.pdf
British Columbia. (2015). A vision for a violence free BC: Addressing violence against
women in British Columba. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/bccriminal-justice-system/if-victim/publications/violence-free-bc.pdf
British Columbia. (2016). British Columbia’s provincial domestic violence plan: Second

125

annual report, 2016. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/publicsafety-and-emergency-services/domesticviolence/podv/provincial_domestic_violence_plan_second_annual_report_2016.p
df
British Columbia’s Coroners Service. (2016). BC coroners service death review panel: A
review of intimate partner violence deaths 2010-2015. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/deathinvestigation/death-review-panel/intimate-partner-violence2010-2015.pdf
Broidy, L., Albright, D., & Denman, K. (2016). Deterring future incidents of intimate
partner violence: Does type of formal intervention matter?. Violence Against
Women, 22, 1113-1133. doi:10.1177/1077801215617552
Brown, T. (2000). Charging and prosecution policies in cases of spousal assault: A
synthesis of research, academic, and judicial responses. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rr01_5/rr01_5.pdf
Burczycka, M. (2016). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2014. Retrieved
from Statistics Canada website: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002x/2016001/article/14303-eng.pdf
Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S. (2017). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile,
2015. Retrieved from Statistics Canada website: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85002-x/2017001/article/14698-eng.pdf
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review
of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.
doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231

126

Carlson, M. J., Harris, S. D., & Holden, G. W. (1999). Protective orders and domestic
violence: Risk factors for re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14(2), 205-226.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P.
H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men
and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(4), 260-268.
Connelly, C., & Cavanagh, K. (2007). Domestic abuse, civil protection orders and the
‘new criminologies’: Is there any value in engaging with the law?. Feminist Legal
Studies, 15, 259-287. doi:10.1007/s10691-007-9069-7
Consolidation of Family Abuse Intervention Act, SNu 2006, c-18, ss 5-52.
Cooper, R. (2012). Lack of state accountability in acts of domestic violence:
Understanding the contrast between the U.S. and international approaches.
Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 29(3), 657-689.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An
application of rational choice theory. Criminology, 25(4), 933-947.
Dawson, M., & Hotton, T. (2014). Police charging practices for incidents of intimate
partner violence in Canada, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 51,
665-683. doi:10.1177/0022427814523787
Department of Justice. (2003). Final report of the ad hoc Federal-Provincial-Territorial
working group reviewing spousal abuse legislation. Retrieved from
http://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/pol/index.html
Department of Justice. (2015). No-contact orders. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/victims-victimes/factsheets-fiches/ordersordonnances.html

127

Dicter, M. E. (2013). “They arrested me-and I was the victim”: Women’s
experiences with getting arrested in the context of domestic violence. Women &
Criminal Justice, 23, 81-98. doi:10.1080/08974454.2013.759068
Disability Alliance BC (2016). Right to be safe: Creating inclusive services for women
with disabilities experiencing violence. Retrieved from
http://www.disabilityalliancebc.org/docs/rtbsguideupdate.pdf?LanguageID=ENUS
Domestic Violence Intervention Act, SNS 2001, c 29, ss 6-19.
Dutton, Donald. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
Ending Violence Association of BC. (2015). Interagency case assessment teams
(ICATS). Retrieved from http://endingviolence.org/prevention-programs/ccwsprogram/interagency-case-%20assessment-teams-icats/
Etherington, N., & Baker, L. (2016). From “buzzword” to best practice: Applying
intersectionality to children exposed to intimate partner violence. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 1-18. doi:10.177/1524838016631128
Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 181.
Family Law New Brunswick. (2012). Peace bonds & restraining orders. Retrieved from
http://www.legal-infolegale.nb.ca/en/publications/criminal_law/Peace_Bonds_EN.pdf
Family Violence Prevention Act, 2002, c 84, ss 2-16.
Fraehlich, C., & Ursel, J. (2014). Arresting women: Pro-arrest policies, debates, and
developments. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 507-518. doi:10.1007/s10896-0149605-6

128

Government of BC (n.d.). Part 9- Protection from Family Violence. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justicesystem/legislation-policy/fla/part9.pdf
Hamel, J. (2011). In dubious battle: The politics of mandatory arrest and dominant
aggressor laws. Partner Abuse, 2(2), 224-245.
Henry, S. & Lanier, M. M. (2006). The essential criminology reader. Cambridge, MA:
Westview Press.
Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., & Faggiani, D. (2007). Domestic violence and
mandatory arrest laws: To what extent do they influence police arrest decisions.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(1), 256-298.
Holder, E. H., Robinson, L. O., & Rose, K. (2009). Practical implications of current
domestic violence research: For law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges.
Retrieved from US Department of Justice website:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225722.pdf
Holt, V. L., Kernic, M. A., Wolf, M. E., & Rivara, F. P. (2003). Do protection orders
affect the likelihood of future partner violence and injury? American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, 24(1), 16-21.
Ismaili, K., Sprott, J. B., & Varma, K. (2012). Canadian criminal justice policy:
Contemporary perspectives. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Iyengar, R. (2009). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from
mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Journal of Public Economics, 93,
421-453. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.09.006
Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S. (1998). Beyond arrest: The

129

Portland, Oregon domestic violence experiment final report. Retrieved from US
Department of Justice website:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/179968.pdf
Kethineni, S., & Beichner, D. (2009). A comparison of civil and criminal orders of
protection as remedies for domestic violence victims in a Midwestern county.
Journal of Family Violence, 24, 311-321. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9231-x
Ko, C. N. (2002). Civil restraining orders for domestic violence: The unresolved question
of “efficacy”. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 11, 361-390.
Kothari, C., L., Rhodes, K. V., Wiley, J. A., Fink, J., Overholt, S., Dichter, M. E…
Cerulli, C. (2012). Protection orders protect against assault and injury. A
longitudinal study of police-involved women victims of intimate partner violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2845-2868.
doi:10.1177/0886260512438284
Landau, T. C. (2000). Women’s experiences with mandatory charging for wife assault
in Ontario, Canada: A case against the prosecution. International Review of
Victimology, 7, 141-147. doi:10.1177/026975800000700308
Light, L. (2009). Police-reported spousal violence incidents in B.C. in which both
partners are suspects/accused. An exploratory study. Retrieved from Government
of B.C. website: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-andjustice/criminal-justice/victims-of-crime/vs-info-for-professionals/inforesources/police-reported-spousal-violence.pdf
Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., Walker, R., & Faragher, T. M. (2006). Protective orders:

130

Questions and conundrums. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7, 175-205.
doi:10.1177/1524838006288930
Logan, T. K., & Walker, R. (2009). Civil protection order outcome: Violations and
perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 675-692.
Loue, S. (2001). Intimate partner violence: Societal, medical, legal, and individual
response. New York, NY: Springer.
Malm, A., Pollard, N., Brantingham, P., Tinsley, P., Plecas, D., Brantinghman,P., &
Kinney, B. (2005). A 30 year analysis of police service delivery and costing:
“E” Division. A report prepared for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Abbotsford, BC. Retrieved from http://endingviolence.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/Complexities-of-AV-service-deliveryFREDA_lowres.pdf
Manitoba Justice (n.d.). Legal options for protection from domestic violence and
stalking: Protection Orders. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/domestic/pdf/protection_orders.pdf
Martinson, D., & Jackson, M. (2016). Risk of future harm: Family violence and
information sharing between Family and Criminal courts. Research Project for
the Canadian Observatory on the Justice System’s Response to Intimate Partner
Violence. Retrieved from http://www.fredacentre.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Observatory-Martinson-Jackson-Risk-Report-FINALJanuary-14-2016.pdf
McCormick, A. V., Cohen, I. M., & Plecas, D. (2011). Reducing recidivism in

131

domestic violence cases. Retrieved from
https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/ccjr/reports-andpublications/Reducing_Recidivism_in_Domestic_Violence_2011.pdf
McFarlane, J., Malecha, A., Gist, J., Watson, K., Batten, E., Hall, I., & Smith, S. (2004)
Protection orders and intimate partner violence: An 18-month study of 150 Black,
Hispanic, and White women. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 613-618.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.4.613
Mears, D. P., Carlson, M. J., Holden, G. W., & Harris, S. D. (2001). Reducing domestic
violence revictimization: The effects of individual and contextual factors and type
of legal intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(12), 1260-1283.
Ministry of Attorney General. (2009). Restraining Order: A self-help guide: How to make
an application for a restraining order. Retrieved from
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/guides/restraining_orde
r/
Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2015). British Columbia’s provincial
domestic violence plan. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/publicsafety-and-emergency-services/domesticviolence/podv/provincial_domestic_violence_plan.pdf
Ministry of Justice. (2010). Violence against women in relationships policy. Retrieved
from http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/victimservices/shareddocs/pubs/vawir.pdf
Ministry of Justice. (2014) Framework for domestic violence courts in British
Columbia. Retrieved from
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/victimservices/shareddocs/dv-courts-framework.pdf

132

Ministry of Justice (2016A). B.C.’s prosecution service: Annual report 2014/15.
Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminaljustice/prosecution-service/reports-publications/cjb-annual-report-2014-2015.pdf
Ministry of Justice (2016B). Protection orders under the Family Law Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justicesystem/legislation-policy/fla/protectionorders.pdf
Neilson, L. C. (2015). Enhancing civil protection in domestic violence cases: Cross
Canada check-up. Retrieved from
https://www.unb.ca/fredericton/arts/centres/mmfc/_resources/pdfs/2civil_protecti
on_information_chapter_footnotes_for_mmffvc.pdf
Newfoundland Labrador Justice (n.d.). Family Violence Protection Act: New options for
victims of family violence in emergency situations in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov.nl.ca/just/childsupport/fvpa_english.pdf
Northwest Territories Justice (2013). Family law in the NWT: Rights, responsibilities,
answers, information. Retrieved from
https://www.justice.gov.nt.ca/en/files/family-lawguide/Family%20Law%20in%20the%20NWT.pdf
Pivot (2013). Imagining courts that work for women survivors of violence. Retrieved
from http://www.bwss.org/wp%20content/uploads/2012/11/Imagining_Courts_Web.pdf
Plecas, D., Segger, T., & Marsland, L. (2000). Reticence and re-assault among victims

133

of domestic violence in Abbotsford, BC. Victoria, Canada: Ministry of Attorney
General.
Province of British Columbia. (2017). Province of British Columbia: Strategic plan
2017/18-2020/21. Retrieved from
http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2017/stplan/Strategic_Plan_2017-18_2020-21.pdf
Provincial Domestic Violence Office. (2014). Provincial domestic violence plan.
Retrieved from http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/podv/pdf/dv_pp_part2.pdf
Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick. (2016). Peace bonds
& restraining orders. Retrieved from http://www.legal-infolegale.nb.ca/en/peace_bonds_and_restraining_orders
Rossiter, K., Yercich, S., & Jackson, M. (2014). Assessing the complexities and
implications of anti-violence service delivery in British Columbia. Retrieved from
http://endingviolence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Complexities-of-AVservice-delivery-FREDA_lowres.pdf
Russell, B. (2012). Effectiveness, victim safety, characteristics, and enforcement of
protective orders. Partner Abuse, 3, 531-552: doi.10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.531
Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for
domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261-272.
Sinha, M. (2013). Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends. Retrieved from
Statistics Canada website:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf
Sisic, M (2012). Judgments of arrest and attitudes toward women’s self-defence in

134

situations of intimate partner violence. Retrieved from
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5841&context=etd
Smith, M. D., & Morra, N. N. (1994). Obscene and threatening telephone calls to women:
Data from a Canadian National Survey. Gender & Society, 8(4), 584-596.
Statistics Canada. (2015). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/150115/dq150115aeng.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2016). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14303eng.pdf
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B. & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner
physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 1065-98.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001
Stoever, J. K. (2014). Enjoining abuse: The case for indefinite domestic violence
protection orders. Vanderbilt Law Review, 67(4), 1014-1098.
The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, CCMS 1998, c D-93, ss 3-25.
The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act, RSS 1994, c V-6.02, ss 3-17.
Thornberry, T. P. & Henry, K. L. (2013). Intergenerational continuity in maltreatment.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 555-569. doi:10.1007/s10802-0129697-5
Tomlinson, K. D. (2016). An examination of deterrence theory: Where do we stand?.
Federal Probation, 80(3), 33-38.

135

Turpel-Lafond, M.E. (2009). Honouring Christian Lee: No private matter: Protecting
children living with domestic violence. Retrieved from
https://www.rcybc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/reports_publications/hono
uring_christian_lee.pdf
Tutty, L., Wyllie, K., Abbott, P., Mackenzie, J., Ursel, E. J., & Koshan, J. M. (2008). The
justice response to domestic violence: A literature review. Retrieved from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/resolve-static/reports/2008/2008-01.pdf
Vancouver Police Department. (n.d.). Domestic violence & criminal harassment unit.
Retrieved from
http://vancouver.ca/police/organization/investigation/investigativeservices/special-investigation/domestic-violence-criminal-harassment.html
Vancouver Police Department. (2014). Vancouver police department regulations and
procedures manual. Retrieved from
http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/manuals/vpd-manual-regulationsprocedures.pdf
Varcoe, C., Hankivsky, O., Ford-Gilboe, M.,Wuest, J., Wilk. P., Hammerton, J., &
Campbell, J. (2011). Attributing selected costs to intimate partner violence in a
sample of women who have left abusive partners: A social determinates of health
approach. Canadian public policy, 37(3), 359-380.
Victims of Family Violence Act, RSPEI, 1988, c V-3.2, ss 4-18.
World Health Organization. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence

136

against women. Taking action and generating evidence. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/978924156
4007_eng.pdf
World Health Organization. (2013). Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual
violence against women: WHO clinical and policy guidelines. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85240/1/9789241548595_eng.pdf?ua=1
Wright, E. M. & Fagan, A. A. (2013). The cycle of violence in context: Exploring the
moderating roles of neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms. Criminology,
51, 217-249. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12003
Zhang, T., Hoddenbagh, J., McDonald, S., & Scrim, K. (2012). An Estimation of the
economic impact of spousal violence in Canada, 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr12_7/rr12_7.pdf

137

Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment Poster

Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent for Survey Participants
Affected by Domestic Violence
My name is Preetpal Basanti and I am a student in the Master of Arts in Criminal Justice
Program with the University of the Fraser Valley (UFV), working under the supervision
of Dr. Amanda McCormick and Dr. Amy Prevost. My thesis research is focused on the
effect that protection orders have on women domestic violence victim’s perceptions of
safety as well as the challenges associated with applying for such orders.
I have created an online survey that focuses on women who have experienced domestic
violence in order to study their experiences with protection orders, challenges with
navigating the court system, the effect the orders had on their safety, and what changes
138

they believe need to be made in accessing protection orders.
The survey should take you between 15 to 30 minutes. Please note your data is
anonymous and there is no way of tracking your individual answers to you. While you
can stop your participation in the study at any point during the survey, once the survey
has been submitted you can no longer withdraw your information as it is recorded
anonymously and cannot be linked back to a specific person. As the survey data will be
collected using a third party service provider, Survey Monkey, which is based in the US,
the collected data are subject to the US Patriot Act. The data from the survey will be
removed from the Survey Monkey platform once it has closed. After that the data will be
downloaded in a machine-readable format and stored indefinitely on my passwordprotected laptop.
Participating in this study does not pose any physical risks to your well-being, but some
questions may touch on sensitive issues. While the questions will not ask you to discuss
in-depth your previous experiences with domestic violence, some questions will touch on
prior experiences of domestic violence. If at any time you feel distressed by any of the
themes discussed in this interview please contact the Crisis Line BC at 1-866-661-3311
or crisiscentre.bc.ca, or VictimLinkBC at 1-800-563-0808, where you will be able to
speak to counsellors should you become distressed or feel that you would like to discuss
the issues raised in the survey in more depth.
It is important to inform you of the potential benefits that society will receive from this
research study. The goal of this research study is to provide clarity of information on the
processes used to access protection orders, and if necessary, effect policy involving the
access and use of protection orders, in order to better service the women who access these
orders. The results may also support service providers, the criminal justice system, and
society in offering better solutions to support families who are dealing with domestic
violence.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this online survey. I would like to remind
you that the online survey is anonymous, and you will not be asked to provide your name
or other personal information.
If you have questions about this research study or its results, please contact me at
. If you would like to contact my senior supervisor, Dr.
Amanda McCormick, with any questions or concerns about this study, please email
Amanda.McCormick@ufv.ca or call 604-504-7441 extension 4106. If you have any
concerns about the ethics of this research study, please contact Associate Vice-President
of Research Engagement and Graduate Studies, Dr. Adrienne Chan, at
Adrienne.Chan@ufv.ca or 604-557-4074. Please note the ethics of this research study has
been reviewed and approved by the UFV Human Research Ethics Board.
Thank you for taking the time to help me determine the effect of protection orders on
domestic violence victim’s perception of safety. By clicking to the next page you are

139

giving your consent to participate in the survey and you are indicating that you are a
woman, 19 years or older, who has experienced domestic violence.

Appendix C: Survey Questions for Women Affected by Domestic
Violence
The survey uses the following definitions as follows:
•
•
•
•

Domestic violence-is defined as experiencing physical, emotional, sexual, or
financial abuse by an intimate partner.
Intimate partner- is defined as a partner who you were involved in a sexual,
physical, and emotional relationship with.
Quality of life- is defined as being satisfied with your overall health, comfort, and
happiness.
Safety- is defined as feeling protected from experiencing physical, emotional,
sexual, or financial abuse.
This heading appeared on all questions: If you become distressed contact Crisis Line BC
at 1-866-661-3311 or VictimLinkBC at 1-800-563-0808.
1. How old are you today?
2. What is your main community of residence?
3. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
4. What is your primary ethnic background? (please pick one)
1. Caucasian (Yes-go to question 7)
2. Aboriginal
3. South Asian (Yes-go to question 7)
4. Asian (Yes-go to question 7)
Other (please specify) (Yes-go to question 7)
5.

Are you a registered or status member?
0. No
1. Yes

6. Do you currently live on a reservation?
0. No
1. Yes
7. Were you born in Canada?
0. No
1. Yes (Go to question 11)
8. How long have you lived in Canada?
140

9. Are you a Canadian citizen?
0. No
1. Yes (Go to question 11)
10. What is your legal status in Canada?
1. Temporary resident
2. Permanent resident
3. Refugee
11. What is your current marital status?
1. Single
2. Dating
3. Common-law
4. Married
5. Separated
6. Divorced
7. Widowed
Other (please specify)
12. What is your highest level of education?
1. Less than high school
2. High school
3. Some College
4. 2-Year College Diploma
5. 4-Year College Degree
6. Masters
7. Doctoral
8. Professional Training Degree
Next, I would like to ask you some questions about your employment status.
13. What is your current employment status?
1. Unemployed
2. Seeking Work
3. Employed
4. Retired
Please state your job title.

14. What is your personal total yearly income range before taxes?
0. Zero
1. Under $20 thousand
2. Between $20 thousand and $49 thousand
3. Between $50 thousand and $99 thousand
4. Over $100 thousand
Next, I would like to ask you some questions about your relationship status.
141

15. When was the last time you were victimized by an intimate partner?
1. Less than 1 month
2. Between 1 to 3 months
3. Between 3to 6 months
4. Between 6 to 9 months
5. Between 9 to 12 months
6. More than 1 year
16. When you were last victimized by an intimate partner, what was your relationship
status with the partner at that time?
1. Dating
2. Common-law
3. Married
4. Separated
5. Divorced
Other (please specify)
17. Altogether, how long have you been or were you in the relationship with this partner?
1. Less than 1 month
2. Between 1 to 3 months
3. Between 3 to 6 months
4. Between 6 to 9 months
5. Between 9 to 12 months
6. More than 1 year
7. Between 1 to 2 years
8. Between 3 to 5 years
9. 5 years or more
18. How far into the relationship were you when the domestic violence first started?
1. Less than 1 month
2. Between 1 to 3 months
3. Between 3 to 6 months
4. Between 6 to 9 months
5. Between 9 to 12 months
6. More than 1 year
Next, are some questions about protection orders. While some protection orders are
made through the police (i.e. peace bonds), they can also be requested through family
court (i.e. Family Law protection orders). These questions focus on the Family Law
protection orders that you yourself may have directly applied for.
19. Have you ever applied for a Family Law protection order against an intimate partner?
0. No (Go to question 51)
1. Yes
2. Not sure (Go to question 51)

142

20. How did you first hear about protection orders?
1. Police officer
2. Victim service worker
3. Victim Safety Unit
4. Social worker
5. Community support worker
6. Lawyer
7. Internet Search
8. Friend or family member
Other (please specify)
21. How long ago did you apply for your most recent protection order?
1. Less than 1 month
2. Between 1 to 3 months
3. Between 3 to 6 months
4. Between 6 to 9 months
5. Between 9 to 12 months
6. More than 1 year
22. Do you currently have a protection order for a current/recent intimate partner?
0. No (Go to question 24)
1. Yes
23. How long was you current protection order valid for?
0. Less than 1 month
1. 3 months
2. 6 months
3. 9 months
4. More than 1 year
5. Not sure
Other (please specify)
24. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY UNSAFE and 5 is VERY SAFE; how safe
did you feel in your relationship before you had the protection order?
1. Very unsafe
2. Unsafe
3. Okay
4. Safe
5. Very safe
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
25. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY POOR and 5 is VERY GOOD; how would
you rate your quality of life before you had the protection order?
1. Very poor
2. Poor
143

3. Okay
4. Good
5. Very good
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
26. Did you receive assistance from anyone in the process of applying for a protection
order?
0. No (Go to question 29)
1. Yes
27. Who provide you assistance in the process of applying for a protection order?
1. Family
2. Friends
3. Community Support Worker
4. Social Worker
5. RCMP/Police
6. Victim services worker
7. Victim Safety Unit
8. Lawyer
Other (Please explain)
28. Can you tell me what assistance they provided you with.
29. Who served your partner with the protection order?
1. You did
2. Family member
3. Friend
4. Community Worker
5. You paid someone to do it
Other (please specify)
30. In total, in your lifetime, how many times have you applied for a protection order?
31. In total, how many times have you applied for a protection order against your most
recent/current intimate partner?
32. Have you ever been denied an application for a protection order?
0. No
1. Yes
If yes, can you describe the reasons you were given for why you were denied this
application?
33. When you applied for your most recent protection order, who was the protection
order for?
1. Just myself
144

2. Myself and my children
3. Just my children
4. Another family member
Other (please specify, remember not to include any personally identifying information)
34. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY DISSATISFIED and 5 is VERY
SATISFIED, how did you feel about the process of applying for a protection order?
1. Very dissatisfied
2. Dissatisfied
3. Okay
4. Satisfied
5. Very satisfied
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
35. Do you have any suggestions to improve the protection order system?
0. No
1. Yes
If yes, please specify how you would improve the system, including the application
process, notification process, and enforcement process
36. What was your relationship status during the most recent/current protection order?
1. I was separated or was working towards legally separating from my partner
2. I was divorced or was working towards divorcing my partner
3. I was “taking a break” from the relationship, but had not ended it yet
4. There was no change in our relationship, meaning that you were still together
Other (please specify)
37. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY UNSAFE and 5 is VERY SAFE; how safe
did you feel in your relationship when the protection order was in place?
1. Very unsafe
2. Unsafe
3. Okay
4. Safe
5. Very safe
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
38. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY POOR and 5 is VERY GOOD; how would
you rate you quality of life when the protection order was in place?
1. Very poor
2. Poor
3. Okay
4. Good
5. Very good

145

Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
39. While the protection order was in place, how much contact did you have with your
partner, who was subject to that protection order?
1. I did not have any contact with my partner
2. I did not have any contact with my partner, though my children did
3. I only had telephone or email contact with my partner
4. I had supervised contact with my partner
5. I continued to willingly have unsupervised contact with my partner
Other (please specify)
40. While the most recent/current protection order was in place, how many times did you
partner violate the no contact condition(s)?
41. How often did you report the(se) violations to the police?
1. Never (Go to question 44)
2. Occasionally- e.g. less than 50% of the time
3. Often- e.g. more than 50% of the time
4. Every time
42. Generally speaking the police response to the violation(s) were:
1. Did nothing
2. Spoke to the subject of the protection order
3. Arrested the subject of the protection order
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
43. Generally speaking, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY UNSAFE and 5 is VERY
SAFE, how did the police response to the violation make you feel?
1. Very unsafe
2. Unsafe
3. Okay
4. Safe
5. Very safe
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
44. Has the protection order expired?
0. No- Go to question 50
1. Yes
2. Not sure- Go to question 50
45. What was your relationship status after the protection order expired?
1. I was separated or was working towards legally separating from my partner
2. I was divorced or was working towards divorcing my partner
146

3. I was “taking a break” from the relationship, but had not ended it yet
4. There was no change in our relationship, meaning that you were still together
Other (please specify)
46. After the protection order expired, were you ever re-victimized by your
current/former intimate partner?
0. No- Go to question 48
1. Yes
47. How did the level of violence compare to before the protective order was in place?
1. Less severe
2. The same
3. More severe
48. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY UNSAFE and 5 is VERY SAFE; how safe
did you feel around your partner after the protection order expired?
1. Very unsafe
2. Unsafe
3. Okay
4. Safe
5. Very safe
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
49. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is VERY POOR and 5 is VERY GOOD, how would
you rate your quality of life after the protection order expired?
1. Very poor
2. Poor
3. Okay
4. Good
5. Very good
Without revealing any personally identifying information, can you tell me why you felt
this way?
50. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very ineffective and 5 is very effective, how would
you rate protection orders in the following areas:
1. Information on what protective orders are used for
2. Information on how to apply
3. Support in filling out the application
4. Awareness about the effect of protection orders
5. Ability to request that the order is served on my partner by someone other
than myself or family
6. Information on the consequences when a partner breaches the conditions
7. Access to information from the police when a partner breaches conditions
8. Co-ordination with other orders, such as custody agreements or police no
contact orders
147

Other (please specify)
51. If you have never applied for a protection order, what was the reason? (Check all that
apply)
1. I was not aware that they existed
2. I did not know how to apply for one
3. I did not have the time to apply for one
4. I did not want to restrict my partner or ex partners access to the children
5. I thought it would make the violence worse
6. I did not think the abuse was bad enough to need one
7. Too expensive
8. I did not understand the process
Other (please specify)
52. What would make it more likely for you to consider applying for a protection order in
the future?
1. More information on what they are used for
2. More information on how to apply
3. Support in filling out the application
4. Being able to request that the order is served on my partner by someone other
than myself or family
5. Hearing about other women’s positive experiences with using protection
orders
6. More information on the consequences when a partner breaches the conditions
7. Better access to information by the police when a partner breaches the
conditions
8. Better co-ordination with other orders, such as custody agreements or police
no contact orders
Other (please specify)
53. Have you ever been diagnosed with a cognitive (mental) disability?
0. No
1. Yes
If yes, please describe
54. Have you ever been diagnosed with a physical disability?
0. No
1. Yes
If yes, please describe
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. I would like to present you
with the Crisis Line BC contact information again, 1-866-661-3311 or via their website
crisiscentre.bc.ca or you can connect with VictimLinkBC at 1-800-563-0808. Please
contact them if you are feeling distressed or need talk.
I would like to invite you to consider participating in a telephone interview to
discuss your personal experiences with protection orders and domestic violence in
148

more depth.
The themes we will discuss include the effect the protection order had on your quality of
life and emotional well-being, challenges you may have experienced when trying to
access the protection order, and any recommendations to improve the process. These
interviews will occur over the telephone and for your participation in the interview
you will receive a $30 gift card. If you would like to participate in the telephone
interview, please click YES and you will be taken to a separate page where I will provide
you with my contact information in order to set up a day and time for the telephone
interview to occur.
55. I would like to participate in the telephone interview?
Yes
Please contact me via e-mail at
time to complete the telephone interview.

or call me to schedule a

Thank you again for your participation in this study, your feedback is important to me.
You can obtain a copy of the final report in early summer 2017, by emailing my
supervisor, Dr. Amanda McCormick, at Amanda.McCormick@ufv.ca.

Appendix D: Letter of Informed Consent for Telephone Interviews with
Women Affected by Domestic Violence
My name is Preetpal Basanti and I am a student in the Master of Arts in Criminal Justice
Program with the University of the Fraser Valley (UFV), working under the supervision
of Dr. Amanda McCormick and Dr. Amy Prevost. My thesis research is focused on
domestic violence victim’s perception of protection orders and how they believe these
orders affect their level of safety, as well as the challenges associated with applying for
such orders.
I will be conducting telephone interviews with women who have experienced domestic
violence in order to study their experiences with protection orders, reasons for why they
chose to use or not use protection orders, if they did use protection orders, the challenges
with navigating the court system, their perceptions of the effect the orders had on their
safety, and what changes they believe need to be made in accessing protection orders.
The interviews will occur over the telephone and should last between 30 to 60 minutes.
Interview responses will be typed directly into an anonymized excel spreadsheet that will
be kept on my password-protected laptop. Please note your responses will not be linked
to your name or any other identifying information. Instead, you data will be recorded
with a number that is unique to you. The purpose for this is because if after the interview
you feel you would like to withdraw your data from the study, you can contact me and I
will remove your coded data.

149

While participation in this study does not pose any physical risks to your well-being,
please note that some of the questions may touch on sensitive issues. If at any time you
feel distressed by any of the themes discussed in this interview please contact the Crisis
Line BC at 1-866-661-3311 or via their website crisiscentre.bc.ca. Your participation in
this research study is voluntary and if you decide at any time that you no longer wish to
participate, you have the right to withdraw your participation, just let me know and I will
stop the interview. If you choose to withdraw from the research study completely any
data that you have provided will be destroyed; however, please note after February 1,
2017, you will not be able to withdraw your data from this study as the information will
have been analyzed and submitted to my supervisors in my written thesis.
It is important to inform you of the potential benefits that society will receive from this
research study. The goal of this research study is to provide clarity of information on the
processes used to access protection orders, and if necessary, effect policy involving the
use protection orders, in order to better service the women who access these orders and
also aide service providers, the criminal justice system, and society to offer better
solutions to what can assist families who are dealing with domestic violence.
Also, for participating in this research study you will receive a $30 gift card. As this
interview is taking place on the phone, at the end of the interview I will need to ask you
for your name and mailing address or the mailing address of where you would like your
gift card mailed. Please note I will not be connecting your name to your interview
responses and after I have mailed out the gift card I will shred your contact information.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this telephone interview. I would like to
remind you of several things. First, as the interview is confidential, no identifying
information, such as your name will be written on it, as such all the data will be
anonymous. Anything that you say in the research study will not be shared with anyone
else or published without your permission, and your privacy will be respected, with one
exception, if you provide information that children are being or have recently been
harmed in that case I will have to inform the RCMP and/or the Ministry of Children and
Family Development.
If you have any questions about this research study or its results, please contact me at
. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this
research study, please contact Associate Vice-President of Research Engagement and
Graduate Studies, Dr. Adrienne Chan, at Adrienne.Chan@ufv.ca or 604-557-4074. Please
note the ethics of this research study has been reviewed and approved by the UFV
Human Research Ethics Board.
Thank you for taking the time to help me determine the effect of protection orders on
domestic violence victim’s perception of safety.

150

VERBAL CONSENT FORM
I am verbally agreeing to participate in the research study: The Effect of Protection
Orders on Domestic Violence Victims Perception of Safety.
I have had the information presented in the letter of informed consent being conducted by
Preetpal Basanti read to me. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my
involvement in this research study and to receive any additional details.
I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the research study until February 1,
2017, and that confidentiality and/or anonymity of all results will be preserved. For
questions about the research study, I may contact Preetpal Basanti at
If I have concerns about the ethics of this research
study, I may contact Dr. Adrienne Chan, Associate Vice-President of Research,
Engagement, and Graduate Studies, at adrienne.chan@ufv.ca or 604-557-4074.
Name
Mailing Address
Date

Appendix E: Telephone Interview Questions with Women Affected by
Domestic Violence
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. I am going to start by
asking you some questions about protection orders. While some protection orders are
made through the police (i.e. peace bonds), they can also be requested through family
court (i.e. family law protection orders). These questions mostly focus on the family law
protection orders that you yourself may have directly applied for.
1. How did you first hear about protection orders?
2. Why did you decide to apply for a protection order?
3. Why did you not apply for a protection order? Did something hold you back?
4. Who was the protection order for?
1. Just myself
2. Myself and my children
3. Just my children
4. Another family member
Other (please specify)
5. What conditions did you ask for in the order? Are there other conditions you
would have like to include in the order, but were not available to you?
151

6. If the protection order also included your children, did you provide a copy or
inform your children’s school about the protection order against your partner?
7. Did you apply for a protection order under the Family Law Act or did
someone else apply for you?
8. What was the process like when you applied for the protection order? Did
anyone help you with your application? (For instance did you have a lawyer
who supported you in the process with the paperwork, did you have support
for a community service support worker, social worker, family, friends, or
were you on your own).
9. Did you engage in any safety planning prior to applying for the protection
order?
10. Who served your partner with the protection order?
1. You did
2. Family member
3. Friend
4. Community Worker
5. Paid someone to do it
Other (Please explain)
11. How would you describe your process for applying for a protection order?
Were you satisfied or dissatisfied?
12. What processes of applying for and having a protection order did you think
worked well? What processes do you think need improvement?
13. How safe did you feel before, during, and after the protection order expired?
14. How would you say the protection order affected your quality of life? Did it
make your quality of life better or worse?
15. How do you feel the protection order worked for you? (Did you feel it
increased your safety or not, what effect did it have on your relationship with
your partner that inflicted the domestic violence)?
16. Did your partner ever violate the protection order? Briefly could you tell me
how your partner violated the condition(s)? (For instance, did he phone you,
text you, or visit you or the children when he was not supposed to)?
17. Did you report the violations to anyone? And what was their response?
1. Friends
2. Family
3. Women Centre
152

4. RCMP
5. Municipal Police Detachment
Other (please specify)
18. What was the police response to the violation(s) and how did that make you
feel?
19. After the protection order expired, were you ever re-victimized? (This
includes physical, emotional, sexual, or financial abuse).
20. How did the level of violence compare to before the protection order was in
place?
21. If you could change anything or make recommendations about the process
used to access protection orders what would you change?
22. Would you ever apply for a protection order again? Why or why not?
23. What would you like to tell other women, who are in a similar situation you
were in?
Do you have any final questions or comments?
Thank you for your time today.

Appendix F: Letter of Informed Consent for Telephone Interviews with
Service Providers
My name is Preetpal Basanti and I am a student in the Master of Arts in Criminal Justice
Program with the University of the Fraser Valley (UFV), working under the supervision
of Dr. Amanda McCormick and Dr. Amy Prevost. My thesis research is focused on
domestic violence victim’s perception of protection orders and how they believe these
orders affect their level of safety, as well as the challenges associated with applying for
such orders.
I will be conducting telephone interviews with service providers who, through their
employment, have worked with domestic violence victims and as such have knowledge
regarding the use of protective orders as well as the challenges and benefits with applying
for one, and if they believe such orders are effective in reducing recidivism.
The interviews will occur over the telephone and should last between 30 to 45 minutes.
Interview responses will be typed directly into an anonymized excel spreadsheet that will
be kept on my password-protected laptop. Please note your responses will not be linked
to your name or any other identifying information. Instead, you data will be recorded
with a number that is unique to you. The purpose for this is because if after the interview

153

you feel you would like to withdraw your data from the study, you can contact me and I
will remove your coded data.
It is anticipated that your participation in this study will not pose any physical risks to
your well-being. Your participation in this research study is voluntary and if you decide
at any time that you no longer wish to participate, you have the right to withdraw your
participation, just let me know and I will stop the interview. If you choose to withdraw
from the research study completely any data that you have provided will be destroyed;
however, please note after February 15, 2017, you will not be able to withdraw your data
from this study as the information will have been analyzed and submitted to my
supervisors in my written thesis.
It is important to inform you of the potential benefits that society will receive from this
research study. The goal of this research study is to provide clarity of information on the
processes used to access protection orders, and if necessary, effect policy involving the
use of protection orders, in order to better service the women who access these orders and
also aide service providers, the criminal justice system, and society to offer better
solutions to what can assist families who are dealing with domestic violence.
If you have any questions about this research study or its results, please contact me at
. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this
research study, please contact Associate Vice-President of Research Engagement and
Graduate Studies, Dr. Adrienne Chan, at Adrienne.Chan@ufv.ca or 604-557-4074. Please
note the ethics of this research study has been reviewed and approved by the UFV
Human Research Ethics Board.
Thank you for taking the time to help me determine the effect of protection orders on
domestic violence victim’s perception of safety.

VERBAL CONSENT FORM
I am verbally agreeing to participate in the research study: The Effect of Protection
Orders on Domestic Violence Victims Perception of Safety.
I have had the information presented in the letter of informed consent being conducted by
Preetpal Basanti read to me. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my
involvement in this research study and to receive any additional details.
I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the research study until February 15,
2017, and that confidentiality and/or anonymity of all results will be preserved. For
questions about the research study, I may contact Preetpal Basanti at
Preetpal.Basanti@student.ufv.ca. If I have concerns about the ethics of this research
study, I may contact Dr. Adrienne Chan, Associate Vice-President of Research,
Engagement, and Graduate Studies, at adrienne.chan@ufv.ca or 604-557-4074.

154

Name
Date

Appendix G: Telephone Interview Questions with Service Providers
1. What is your current employment position?
2. How long have you been employed in your current position?
3. Can you describe your work related responsibilities in relation to domestic
violence?
4. What is your understanding of the difference between protection orders (civil
orders such as peace bonds and protection orders through the Family Law Act)
and criminal orders that have a no contact condition?
5. Do you ever recommend that a client apply for a protection order? Why or why
not? If not, what else do you suggest they do to increase their safety?
6. Do you assist women in applying for protection orders?
a) If so what does that entail?
b) If not- why not? Is there something that prevents you from providing
assistance?
7. When the same victim of domestic violence simultaneously has both a civil
protection order and a criminal no contact order in place, which order takes
precedence and how is that decision made?
8. What are the challenges with having both these orders in place at the same time?
9. What are the benefits of having both these orders available for domestic violence
victims?
10. Can you access information on the Protection Order Registry?
11. When accessing information from the Protection Order Registry is it possible to
view expired orders, or are only active orders present?
12. What are the benefits associated with the Protection Order Registry?
13. What are the challenges associated with the Protection Order Registry?
14. What challenges, if any, are there related to information sharing about domestic
violence cases with service providers from multiple areas, such as those from
RCMP, a municipal police agency, MCFD, or the Ministry of Justice?
155

15. What is your typical response when a subject of a protection order violates it?
Under what conditions would you act or not act?
16. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being NOT EFFECTIVE and 5 being VERY
EFFECTIVE, how effective do you believe criminal orders with a no contact
condition are in reducing recidivism for domestic violence?
1. Not effective
2. A little effective
3. Somewhat effective
4. Effective
5. Very effective
Could you explain your choice?
17. Under what circumstances do you think criminal orders with a no contact
condition seem to work best, and for whom?
18. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being NOT EFFECTIVE and 5 being VERY
EFFECTIVE, how effective do you believe protection orders are in reducing
recidivism for domestic violence?
1. Not effective
2. A little effective
3. Somewhat effective
4. Effective
5. Very effective
Could you explain your choice?
19. Under what circumstances do you think protection orders seem to work best, and
for whom?
20. What are the biggest barriers in your community to applying for a protection
order?
21. What are the biggest challenges when assisting women who have protection
orders in place against an intimate partner?
22. Is there a process in place to notify the victim when a protection order expires?
23. Is there a process in place to notify you when a protection order expires for a
client?
24. What improvements, if any, do you think could be made to the protection order
process, system, or registry? (i.e. in the way they are obtained, how violations are
reported, and how information is shared with service providers).
25. What are the greatest strengths or benefits of the current system?
156

26. Overall, how would you improve the current system?
Do you have any final questions or comments?
Thank you for your time today.

157