For four decades, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic (“the Clinic”) has been a pillar of support for women experiencing gender-based violence, providing trauma-informed counselling, legal representation, and advocacy. From its inception, the Clinic has recognized that access to justice demands a comprehensive and intersectional approach that provides legal assistance and actively dismantles the systemic and emotional barriers survivors face. Our dedicated legal and counselling teams work in collaboration to deliver holistic, trauma-informed, survivor-centered, and culturally responsive services, ensuring that every woman we support is equipped with the tools to reclaim her rights and agency. With the aid of professional interpreters, we eliminate linguistic and cultural barriers, making justice truly accessible to women from diverse backgrounds.
Beyond individual representation, we drive systemic change through strategic litigation, intervening in precedent-setting cases to strengthen legal protections for survivors, advance justice reform, and uphold fundamental rights, including those enshrined in the Charter. Grounded in the belief that justice must be equitable and transformative, the Clinic remains committed in its mission to reshape legal frameworks, challenge discriminatory practices, and drive meaningful, lasting reform.
The Clinic was a co-intervenor in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia (2023), at the Ontario Court of Appeal and now urges the Supreme Court to recognize the tort of family violence. It emphasizes that existing torts fail to address the cumulative harm of gender-based violence and do not account for the intersectional experiences of violence. The hearing is set for February 11 and 12, 2025, and the Clinic remains steadfast in its advocacy for this critical recognition. The factum of the Clinic can be read here.
In Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev (2018) and Dunmore v. Mehralian(2024), the Clinic played a pivotal role in advocating for a more nuanced, child-centered approach to determining a child’s habitual residence. These cases considered situations in both Hague Convention and non-Hague Convention countries. In Balev, the Clinic advocated for a child-centered approach, emphasizing the importance of considering a child’s lived experience over rigid legal standards. This marked a shift from the previously dominant parental intention approach toward prioritizing what is best for the child based on their unique circumstances. Building on this progress, in Dunmore, the Clinic intervened to push for an inclusive hybrid test that also accounted for factors like gender-based violence, barriers to justice, and precarious immigration status, recognizing the systemic challenges faced by vulnerable families.
The Clinic has advocated for stronger legal protections in sexual assault cases, playing a pivotal role in shaping laws that uphold fairness and dignity for survivors. In R v Seaboyer and R v Gayme (1991), the Clinic advocated that striking down Rape Shield laws would be detrimental to victims, discouraging them from reporting crimes due to a system that shames and re-victimizes them. The erosion of these protections would perpetuate harmful stereotypes linked to a complainant’s past sexual activities, further entrenching systemic barriers to justice. Recognizing these concerns, the courts ruled that such evidence has strictly limited use and cannot be employed to undermine the complainant’s credibility, reinforcing the legal system’s commitment to fairness and survivor protection.
In R. v. Kirkpatrick (2022), the Clinic advocated that stealthing violates consent and sexual autonomy, a position upheld by the Supreme Court. The Clinic emphasized that consent must be informed and respected at all times, and that any violation of this consent, such as the removal of a condom during intercourse, undermines the core principle of mutual agreement. In R. v. J.J.(2022), the Clinic advocated for stricter rules against the misuse of complainant’s private records, ensuring they are only introduced when truly relevant and not used as a tool to intimidate a complainant. In R. v. Slatter (2020), the Clinic emphasized that the complainant’s evidence should not be dismissed based on stereotypes or assumptions regarding their suggestibility. It highlighted the heightened vulnerability of deaf and disabled migrant women to such biases, underscoring the urgent need for legal protections to guard against these prejudices.
In Ava Williams v. London Police Services (2017), the Clinic, as a co-plaintiff, commenced legal proceedings against London Police Services. The Clinic sought a court order mandating an annual external review by an independent panel of experts, including frontline service providers and women’s legal advocates, to assess all sexual assault cases closed as “unfounded” and a random sample of others, ensuring accountability and adherence to trauma-informed practices.
In 2014, Justice Robin Camp made remarks during a sexual assault trial that inappropriately questioned a 19-year-old Indigenous complainant. His conduct and line of questioning raised serious concerns regarding bias and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes within the judicial process. The Clinic along with WAVAW was granted a unique opportunity by the Canadian Judicial Council to intervene in the inquiry. In the submission, the Clinic advocated for justice by underscoring the profound impact of biased judicial conduct on survivors, particularly women facing intersecting inequalities. The Clinic emphasized the necessity for a systemic response to breaches of equality and non-discrimination, calling for more than merely sensitivity training. It urged a deeper commitment to dismantling harmful stereotypes and restoring public confidence in the legal system.
In 2012, the Clinic challenged the Canadian government’s decision to eliminate the long-gun registry through Bill C-19, arguing that it endangered women’s safety, particularly in domestic violence cases. The clinic presented evidence that the registry was crucial for law enforcement in preventing gun violence against women, submitted expert affidavits and personal testimonies highlighting the registry’s role in protecting vulnerable individuals. Despite the court’s dismissal of the application, the clinic’s advocacy brought attention to the importance of gun control in safeguarding women from harm.
Through these interventions, the Clinic continues to push for systemic change, striving to create a legal landscape that is fair, survivor-centered, and responsive to the realities of gender-based violence. In addition to these, there are many other interventions that further support this mission, and a comprehensive overview of them can be found here.
Deepa Mattoo B.A, LL.B, MBA, PGD, LSM (She/her)
Barrister and Solicitor
Executive Director
Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic
489 College Street, Suite 503
Toronto, ON M6G 1A5
For more information check out our Intervention case digest