Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

NWT
An evaluation of the 2005 Protection Against Family Violence Act is recommending changes to the practice and legislation regarding emergency protection orders (EPO), but is also providing some scathing remarks on how the RCMP is enforcing the legislation.

"Throughout the whole EPO, I think I contacted them (the RCMP) three or four times but they weren't interested unless he was going to physically break in and attack me. It wasn't really taken seriously by them and I could tell that it was like, 'whatever, you're on your own'," said one applicant in the 101-page evaluation by the Canadian company R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd.

Other applicants quoted in the report had similar experiences.

"The EPO was not helpful when the police wouldn't assist me during the times it was breached. I kind of felt that they were laughing at me. I wouldn't call the police again, it happened too many times to try again."

"They (RCMP) were mad at me, they were sick and tired of hearing from me, it was like I was being a pain to them but if I had done anything … I would have been thrown in jail."

The authors also criticize the RCMP for the number of breaches not charged. They found that only 63.6 per cent of cases out of 66 breaches reported between 2006-2010 resulted in charges.

"Breach of any court order, including an EPO, is illegal. When the RCMP becomes aware of an EPO breach and charges are not laid, it negates the meaning/value of the order, thus reducing its effectiveness as a protective measure and provides a negative social response to the applicant," said the authors of the report, released on May 18 and published on the GNWT's website on Aug. 15.

Although the report does indicate other applicants felt they were generally supported, understood and taken seriously by the RCMP, and "would not hesitate to go to the police or recommend someone in a similar situation to go to the police," the authors still recommend the RCMP review its breach policies regarding EPOs and implement those policies as intended.

Calls to Wes Heron, the media relations officer with the RCMP's "G" division, were not returned by press time.

There are a total of 14 recommendations and three so-called key findings discussed in the report.

Also noteworthy is the need for a definition of what constitutes an emergency. The authors point out that family violence is defined in the act, but a definition of an emergency is done on a case-by-case basis and at different levels by different personnel, such as front-line workers, and in the end, a justice of the peace and a Supreme Court judge.

First implemented on April 1, 2005, the GNWT's Protection Against Family Violence Act legislates the protection of a complainant against family violence, which includes acts that cause bodily harm, damage to property, fear for one's safety or fear for a child's safety. Family violence also includes forcible confinement and psychological, sexual, emotional or financial abuse, according to the act. The complainant can then apply for an emergency protection order removing the alleged abuser from the home for up to 90 days, if granted at a hearing by a justice of the peace.

Between April 1, 2005 and March 25, 2010, there have been a total of 448 applications for emergency protection orders in 29 communities in the NWT, and from April 2008 to October 2010, out of 163 EPO applications, 89.5 per cent were made by women.

Laura Seddon, director of policy and planning for the GNWT Department of Justice, said the recommendations and findings are currently being looked at in terms of which ones can move forward and what it would take to implement them. Some of the recommendations may need resources and a new territorial government, and possibly a new minister of justice, in place to make decisions regarding the recommendations and any resources needed to implement them, could lengthen or complicate the process.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.