The Costs of Justice in Domestic Violence Cases : Mapping Canadian Law and Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic violence cases in Canada present unique access to justice challenges due to complex power dynamics, structural inequality, and the fact that victims, offenders, and children must often navigate multiple legal systems to resolve the many issues in this context. The complexity of these cases has both personal and systemic impacts. Different legal systems – for example, criminal, family, child protection, social welfare, and immigration – have differing objectives and personnel with varying levels of expertise in domestic violence. Conflicting decisions by different courts and tribunals with overlapping jurisdiction may impair the safety of victims and children, and may require multiple court appearances to resolve. Victims may face contradictory messages about how seriously adjudicators will treat domestic violence, and offenders can use the existence of different systems to perpetuate abuse. These issues are gendered, as women are the primary victims of domestic violence, and the concerns may be heightened among marginalized women. The issues may also differ across Canadian provinces and territories and on First Nations reserves, given the application of different laws, policies, and dispute resolution models.\nThis chapter explores how the access to justice crisis in Canada manifests itself in domestic violence cases. It reviews the literature on access to justice and domestic violence, adopting a broad definition of access to justice to inform the analysis. It then documents and compares the legal and policy provisions and systems affecting litigants in domestic violence cases across Canadian jurisdictions, highlighting legal reforms as well as the systemic barriers in seeking justice that victims, offenders, and children confront. A hypothetical case study is then used to explore how the complex interaction of multiple laws, policies, and dispute resolution processes may impact victims of domestic violence. This comparative mapping analysis is a first step towards identifying the systemic reforms necessary to enhance access to justice in domestic violence cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".