Legal Reform and Cases

Legal reform are words that hold specific protections in law but are equally contested in law. Law and the courts are where everything needs to be defined and scaled into a test that judges can apply to a particular situation.

Barbra Schlifer Clinic raises its voice on a number of important legal issues so that all women and gender diverse people can build lives free from violence, and provide expertise to other community agencies working with women and gender diverse people experiencing violence.

Dunmore v. Mehralian, 2025 SCC 20

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Dunmore v. Mehralian, 2025 SCC 20—a landmark ruling that affirms a contextual, trauma-informed approach to determining jurisdiction in parenting disputes under Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA). The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic was proud to intervene in this case, alongside several other organizations, to ensure that the voices and lived realities of survivors of gender-based violence were heard at the highest level of our legal system.

Read more here

Michael Paul Dunmore v. Raha Mehralian (41108) (December 2024)

The Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic successfully applied for public interest intervenor status and appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Michael Paul Dunmore v. Raha Mehralian (41108). In our submission, we urged the Court to expand the hybrid test for determining a child’s habitual residence to include considerations of gender-based violence, access to justice, and precarious immigration status. This approach prioritizes the best interests of the child and ensures the safety and well-being of both the child and the survivor parent. The case involved complex issues of family law, including the habitual residence of children in non-Hague Convention signatory states and the balance of policy objectives under Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act. While the appeal has been dismissed, we eagerly await the full decision

Read more here

Advancing the Rights of Survivors of GBV

What follows is a collection of Clinic interventions intended to provide the student with an understanding of the work undertaken by the Clinic over the years.

Interventions

Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia (July 2023)

The Ontario Court of Appeal in its decision in Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia agreed “it is axiomatic that intimate partner violence must be recognized, denounced and deterred” but – unfortunately – missed the opportunity to affirm the tort of family violence.

As one of the interveners in Ahluwalia, the Clinic argued that the tort of family violence would fill a gap in our existing system of tort law, which fails to adequately capture the wrongdoing at the core of family violence. 

Read more here

Tort of Family Law (March 2023)

The Clinic intervened, alongside Luke’s Place, at the Ontario Court of Appeal in a family law case regarding a new family law tort.  The case involves parties who were married for 16 years and share two children. The issues at trial were property equalization, child support, spousal support, and the mother’s claim for damages about the father’s abuse during the marriage.

Justice Mandhane specifically recognized a common law tort of family violence. Given the limitations of the Divorce Act, it was found that “only an award in tort can properly compensate for the true harms and financial barriers associated with family violence.” 

In our joint intervention, the Clinic argued that Justice Mandhane’s finding was correct and that existing torts were insufficient to capture the uniquely harmful aspects of family violence.

Factum of the Interveners

R. v. Slatter

The Clinic’s position in front of the Supreme Court was based on two points: the complainant’s evidence must not be found unreliable because of the possibility of being “suggestible” based on stereotypes and generalized assumptions about the complainant, and that such assumptions raise additional evidentiary hurdles for deaf and disabled migrant women, a demographic already at high risk of sexual violence.

R. v. Slatter

R vs. Ururyar

The Clinic made submissions in support of Mandi Gray’s restitution award in the case of R vs. Ururyar.

Schlifer Clinic Application Record – R. v. Ururyar |  Ururyar Factum | Leave to Intervene Granted

•  The Clinic welcomes the legislative changes proposed in Bill C-78  by the federal government.
• Open letter to Parliament re: Bill C-71 – An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms
• Intervened in a case involving a Muslim woman’s right to testify about sexual assault while wearing a niqab, a veil that covers the face except for the eyes (Factum_Intervener_BSCC_N.S.);
• Intervened at the supreme court to protect the privacy rights of two sexual assault complainants when the defense counsel and the crown argued to have their past police occurrence records released to the defense (AffidavitofAmandaDale, NoticeMotioLeaveIntervene, Quesnelle Media Release, SupremeCourtCanada_Decision_Quesnelle)
• Fought the federal government when it loosened the gun laws in Canada specifically related to that class of firearms – the guns most often used to kill and terrorize women in domestic violence situations (Applicant’s Factum (C1059857xA0E3A) Ont_Firearms & ADale_SwornAffidavit_Ontario_Firearms, also Accounting for Deprivation)
• Intervened on a Supreme Court case that tested the scope of harms considered by the Humanitarian and Compassionate immigration provision, which is used by women who experience violence to stay their deportations when their experience of violence has not been properly heard through the refugee or regular immigration process (BSCC Written Subs Bill S-7  KanthasamyFactumBSCC_CCVT,  Affidavit_of Amanda Dale, SCCDecision)
• Intervened on the “Barbaric Cultures Act”, introduced by the Government of Stephen Harper, and not repealed by the current Liberal government  (BSCC Written Subs Bill S-7), (Final Bill S7 Statement Updated,”The country we want doesn’t use fake feminism to hate“
• Provided evidence in a Federal Court challenge in response to the Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) provisions of the immigration and refugee act.(IMM-3700-13 AND IMM-5940-14, Amanda Dale – DCOAffidavit)
• Presented to United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on the matter of the Federal Government’s banning of face coverings at the Citizenship Ceremony. (CERDSchliferCitizenshipBan-3)