International Law for Women

a resource for women's human rights advocates

Tag: Canada

Canadian law inspires hope on the elimination of intimate partner violence
(25 minutes read time; post-graduate level)

Lady Justice holding the scales of justice before a Canadian flag on a sun lit mountain
(AI generated image)

Eliminating intimate partner violence globally may be almost intangible goal, but within Canada there is continued hope and effort for advancement. In the face of a global backlash against women’s human rights and following a rough beginning under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new leadership in 2025, Canada has seemingly recommitted itself to the progression of gender equality. Even so, as Canadian Parliamentarians return to their seats this fall, they have unfinished business to resume from the 45^th Parliament, 1^st Session. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is just one of many interrelated forms of gender-based violence and remains a persistent issue within Canada, contributing to substantive gender inequality. After several years of declining rates, IPV began increasing in 2015,[ia] as reported by Statistics Canada in 2025, coinciding with the beginning of the global backlash. And, while IPV is not confined to a particular sex, gender, class, age, ability nor ethnicity, women and girls are the primary victims; those with intersectional marginalized identities face increased risk. This article provides an overview of recent federal commitments taken to mitigate intimate partner violence by using the international framework of human rights indicators.
Index
- Human rights indicators
- Ratification of international human rights treaties
  (structural indicators)
- Domestic legislation and rulings addressing gender-based violence (2026)
  
  Bill C-16: Protecting Victims Act
  
  Bill C-225 Bailey’s Law
  
  Common Law and judicial rulings (process indicators)
- Canada’s work ahead in legislation
  
  Bill S-236: Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
  
  Bill S-242: Georgina’s Law
- Conclusion
Human rights indicators

States have a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. Compliance and progress with these obligations are measured through human rights indicators (HRIs). The assessment framework, as endorsed by the United Nations in 2012, measures three types of human rights indicators – structural, which are the voluntary commitments that a State has made, process, which consider the efforts that each State has made, and outcome indicators, which measure the results. The infographic below illustrates examples.

United Nations Indicator Framework – compliance and performance assessments

Ratification of international human rights treaties (structural indicators)

An assessment of a State’s compliance with international human rights law begins with a determination of its legal commitments – the structural indicators. The ratification[ii] of international human rights instruments, also known as treaties or conventions, in turn create legal obligations for the implementation of human rights standards into domestic law and policies.

The ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which is globally recognized as a core human rights treaty, has become the minimum commitment towards gender equality that is expected of all United Nations Member States. To date the CEDAW has been ratified by 189 UN Member States, including Canada in 1981, but notably not by the United States. And while the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has become a legal source for women’s human rights, it does not explicitly address violence or abuse. But now, that massive gap is being filled through regional conventions.

The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence[iii], also known as the Istanbul Convention, according to the city where it was adopted, requires member parties to create laws, policies and related support services to end violence against women. This Convention functions as complementary to the CEDAW. Unfortunately, the Convention is only open to Council of Europe member States, as it is a regional organization. However, the Council has a similar counterpart in the Americas – the Organization of American States (OAS).

Women in protest against femicide; photo by Tlhagueny, courtesy of Pexels

While many Canadians are aware that Canada is a member party of the United Nations, a global organization, they are mostly unaware of Canada’s membership, or even the existence of the Organization of American States (OAS). Membership in this regional organization carries with it human rights obligations, which extend legal rights to all individuals within the jurisdiction of those States. Like the United Nations, the Organization of American States has a commission to oversee gender equality. “Established in 1928, the Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM) was the first inter-governmental agency established to ensure recognition of women’s human rights.”[iv]

On June 23, 2026, Canada ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women.[v] This human rights instrument is essential because the CEDAW does not contain a stand-alone provision prohibiting violence or abuse. Global Affairs Canada, in their press release, referred to violence against women as “one of the most pervasive and deeply rooted human rights violations and abuses of our time”.[vi]

Also known as the Belém do Pará Convention, after the Brazilian city where it was adopted, the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women recognizes “that violence against women is an offense against human dignity and a manifestation of the historically unequal power relations between women and men”[vii]. In doing so, the treaty takes aim at substantive inequality. Whereas in 2026 women may be equal to men according to the law in most democratic nation States, they are not substantively equal, even in Canada. Violence against women continues to infringe upon the enjoyment of many other human rights, including the right to education, the right to work, the right to political participation, the right to health and the right to life; therefore, ratification is an essential step towards women achieving substantive gender equality. For Canada, on July 23, 2026, the Belém do Pará Convention entered into force, as per Article 21.

Women supporting each other in the face of intimate partner and gender-based violence

Domestic legislation and rulings addressing gender-based violence

Structural indicators are used to measure human rights commitments internationally, regionally and domestically. The enactment of domestic legislation is necessary to give legal effect to international and regional commitments. Human rights must exist in law. The following legislative acts have been adopted according to the implementation of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women. Although the Convention does not name ‘coercive control’ or ‘femicide’ explicitly, the concepts of both are implied in Article 1 and other provisions.

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, violence against women shall be understood as any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.[viii]

Once the legislative act is passed or reaches ‘royal assent’, as is the formal term in the Canadian Parliament, and has entered into force, it can then be upheld as law in Court.

Bill C-16: Protecting Victims Act

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures);

Introduced in the House of Commons and sponsored by the Minister of Justice,
the Honourable Sean Fraser
First reading: December 9, 2025
Assented to: June 18, 2026

On June 18^th of 2026 all sides of the House of Commons came together and passed Bill C-16 (2025), the Protecting Victims Act. The Act amended the Criminal Code of Canada to address child protection, gender-based violence, delays in the court system and other important measures. The Act recognizes the complexity of gender-based violence by adding two crucial crimes that fill in the shadows. Bill C-16 defined and added coercive control as an autonomous criminal offence to the Criminal Code thereby acknowledging that gender-based violence is more than incident-based; it is an abuse and a form of psychological violence that occurs over an extended period of time, often using threats and intimidation, exhibiting a pattern of conduct meant to entrap and control a partner, spouse or vulnerable person.

While most amendments of Bill C-16 came into force on July 18^th, 2026, those on coercive control will take up to two years to implement, allowing time to train peace officers, judges and others. In the meantime, countless women continue to survive without liberty or safety. Some won’t make it to the two-year mark, as coercive control is a strong predictor of femicide and suicide.

Canada also conceptualized femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. This addition classifies the murder of a woman as first-degree murder, under certain circumstances, including following a pattern of coercive control. Canada, however, does not join the almost 30 other nation States, mostly from Latin America and the European Union, that recognize femicide as a stand-alone crime.[ix] [x] [xi]

This question remains – how will the delay in the implementation of recognizing coercive control as a crime in and of itself, affect the determination of femicide?

Bill C-225: Bailey’s Law

An Act to amend the criminal code

Introduced in the House of Commons by the Honourable Frank Caputo
First reading: April 28, 2026
Royal Assent: June 17, 2026

Bailey’s Law amends the Criminal Code of Canada to strengthen protections against intimate partner violence. First, it creates “a new specific offence of murder in the first degree if the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”[xii]. If manslaughter is committed under that same context, “the court must consider whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on the offender and, if that sentence is imposed, an adult offender is ineligible for parole for 10 to 25 years”[xiii]. It also creates “new offences in respect of included offences in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner”[xiv]. Additionally, Bill C-225 will “increase the detention period of things seized under section 490 of the Act from three months to 180 days”[xv], which could keep lethal weapons away from offenders.

Bill C-225 may appear at first glance to be redundant to Bill C-16, however, it has an important distinction that lies in its raison d’être. The justice system failed Bailey McCourt, a 32-year-old mother of two, who was killed by her abusive, estranged ex-husband shortly after he was released on bail.[xvi] Earlier on the day that James Plover blugeoned Bailey McCourt to death with a hammer in a Kamloops, BC parking lot, he had been sentenced to three counts of uttering threats and one count of assault by strangling.[xvii] Plover never should have been released from police custody! But now, Bailey’s Law will reform bail policy for high-risk offenders and require recognition of lethality risk indicators during bail hearings.

Bailey McCourt and daughters

Common law and judicial rulings (process indicators)

Process indicators are a subset of human rights indicators that measure the scope of the State’s effort to make women’s human rights effective. These are both quantitative, such as budgetary commitments, and qualitative, including judgments and rulings. The judicial finding would fall under process indicators in the framework of human rights indicators (HRIs).

A landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada recognized coercive control as a new tort (unfair harm) in the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia on May 15, 2026. “Best understood, it is not confined to conduct that inflicts physical or psychological injury but includes all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy. This includes egregious acts of physical and psychological violence, as well as tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap intimate partners.”[xviii]

One may wonder how a court can make this ruling before the new legislation of Bill C-16 had taken effect. The answer is ‘common law’, which in this context refers to the legal findings of other nations, and it is widely used in human rights law. According to the Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Kasirer, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau “Common law jurisprudence in Canada reveals a largely settled method for how and when novel causes of action in tort should be recognized. Incremental change in the common law is warranted where necessary to clarify a legal principle, resolve an inconsistency, or ensure the law remains in step with the evolution of society.”[xix] Legal precedents are often used where there is no appropriate written legal code, in the applicable Constitution, for the case at hand.

Canada’s new tort of coercive control represents crucial progress in the advancement towards substantive gender equality domestically, while setting legal precedent for foreign nations to follow.

Women parliamentarians (AI generated image)

Canada’s work ahead in legislation

There are several legislative acts that were introduced in 2025 and 2026, before Parliament passed for the summer break, that remain to be passed. These acts would complement existing ones to advance women’s human rights in Canada by mitigating gender-based and intimate partner violence.

In March of 2026 the United Nations Human Rights Committee published its seventh periodic report on Canada. The Committee’s Concluding Observations included principal matters of concern and recommendations on human rights; they addressed gender equality, violence against women and domestic violence. The Committee noted that these issues are particularly prevalent in remote areas and disproportionately affect

“women and girls from Indigenous Peoples or from racial or ethnic minorities and 2SLGBTQI+ persons”[xx]. The Committee specified that it is concerned by “limited availability of shelters and legal aid services, as well as by the obstacles victims face in reporting violence and accessing justice, such as the lack of trauma-informed policing practices, lengthy and adversarial legal processes and inadequate coordination among police, courts and social services. The Committee received reports raising concerns about the lack of transparency, oversight and clarity of implementation processes related to the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence (arts. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 26).”[xxi]

Bills S-236 and S-242 would give legal effect, in part, to the Committee’s recommendations.

Bill S-236: Canadian Victims Bill of Rights

An Act to amend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to establish a framework for implementing the rights of victims of crime

Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Leo Housakos
First reading: October 1, 2025

Amendments to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights will provide greater transparency to victims of crime about the investigation and proceedings of their cases, and information about the accused or offenders. This bill may have saved Bailey McCourts life, had she been informed that her abusive ex-husband had been released from police custody earlier that day. While it maybe too late for her, it may save the lives of other victims of intimate partner violence.

The Act also adds important support to the victims of crime by adding “13.1 Every victim has the right to have access to legal, social, medical and psychological services that are suited to their needs and circumstances”. This would aid in addressing the many human rights violations that are consequences of intimate partner violence.

Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention requires States Parties to (g.) “establish the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms to ensure that women subjected to violence have effective access to restitution, reparations or other just and effective remedies”.[xxii] Section 16 of the Victims Bill of Rights would be amended with:

Reparations

16 Every victim has the right to obtain reparations for the harm done to them as the result of the commission of an offence, including the right to

(a) have access to restorative justice programs; and

(b) have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender.

Ubi jus, ibi remedium –

‘where there is a right, there is a remedy’,
Latin maxim

The right to an effective remedy is a core component of international human rights law. This follows from the duty that States have to give legal effect in the domestic legal order to the rights of certain conventions, such as the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (See General Comment No. 9; CESR Committee) Ensuring the right to an effective remedy is in the best interest of the State and of the individual. Before an individual or group of individuals may submit a formal complaint to a human rights body at the international level, they must first exhaust all remedies at the domestic level. This provides the State with the opportunity to rectify a situation and avoid accusations or findings of human rights violations at the international level.

It is not imperative, however, that the domestic remedies be judicial; the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides for a non-judicial mechanism in Section 25 of the Act.

Complaint to authority

(2) Every victim who has exhausted their recourse under the complaints mechanism and who is not satisfied with the response of the federal department, agency or body may file a complaint with the authority designated by the Governor in Council to review complaints in relation to that department, agency or body.[xxiii]

Non-judicial mechansims aid in reducing court backlogs and in administering justice more efficiently to victims.

Victims rights advocates protest outside of Parliament (AI generated image)

Having access to an effective remedy unfortunately does not prevent nor protect from human rights violations. Protections must be found in the law itself through the adoption of legislative measures and their effective implementation, adherence and policy evaluations. These measures often rely on budgetary commitments and other limited State resources, which are measurements of process indicators. And while State resources may be limited, a recent report by YWCA BC – The Cost of Inaction: Measuring the Economic Impact of Gender-Based Violence in BC – estimates that gender-based violence costs BC $1.12 billion annually. [xxiv] Alternatively, prevention is much less costly.

YWCA BC – The Cost of Inaction: Measuring the Economic Impact of Gender-Based Violence in BC
(click arrow to drop Figure 1: infographic of annual costs)

Unfortunately, Bill S-246 has not proceeded since its first reading in the Senate on October 1^st, 2025. It must proceed to bring legal effect to Canada’s international legal obligations.

Bill S-242: Georgina’s Law

An act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence

Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Fabian Manning
Third reading in the Senate: February 24, 2026
First reading in the House of Commons: May 27, 2026

As per Article 3 of the Belém do Pará Convention “Every woman has the right to be free from violence in both the public and private spheres.”[xxv] Furthermore, under Article 8 (h.) the Convention requires States “to ensure research and the gathering of statistics and other relevant information relating to the causes, consequences and frequency of violence against women, in order to assess the effectiveness of measures to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to formulate and implement the necessary changes”.[xxvi] Bill S-242 would implement those obligations into the domestic legal order.

Bill S-242 recognizes that the efforts in protection from intimate partner violence must be continued. In 2014 Georgina McGrath nearly lost her life to intimate partner violence due to the severity of her injuries. To protect others from such violence she has been fighting to change the laws since 2017, along with Senator Fabian Manning. Bill S-242 provides for the continuation of national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence and femicide, led by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality (WAGE). The Act, known as Georgina’s Law, is centered on annual engagement between the WAGE Minister and federal and provincial ministers responsible for the status of women, as well as regular engagement with Indigenous partners, victims, survivors, and stakeholders with respect to “the adequacy of current programs and strategies aimed at preventing intimate partner violence and at protecting and assisting victims of intimate partner violence”[xxvii], as well as other considerations.

This Act would require that the WAGE Minister publish a report every two years on the progress and action taken to prevent and address IPV. This report would provide a necessary assessment of the collective efforts to eliminate IPV and in turn create accountability.

In the Senate debate on December 11, 2025, Senator Manning noted that since he introduced the first inception of this bill in 2018, “close to 1,500 victims, almost all of them women, have died by the hands of their intimate partner.”[xxviii] Bill S-242 passed in the Senate where it was introduced, on February 24, 2026; it is now under consideration in the House of Commons with the hope that it will soon reach Royal Assent.

“Close to 1,500 victims, almost all of them women, have died by the hands of their intimate partner.”
Senator Fabian Manning; February 24, 2025

Conclusion

Ultimately, the true measure of a State’s progress with respect to human rights is not revealed by its intent on paper (structural indicators), nor of its efforts, such as the creation of programs, initiatives or the allocation of funds (process indicators), but rather in the results (outcome indicators). These can be qualitative or quantitative, as in the example of statistics. They should measure the real-life impacts on citizens.

It is a tragic reality that despite the progress that nation States like Canada are making in combating intimate partner violence, there is still much work to be done. The legislative acts mentioned here are not exhaustive; there are other forms of discrimination, exploitation, and violence against women by intimate partners that overlap with other human rights abuses. They include sexual exploitation, trafficking and technology-facilitated violence, which can merge together, or with other forms of abuse. To that effect, the CEDAW Committee acknowledged the prevalence of “new and emerging forms” of gender-based violence, which require constant vigilance in all areas – public, private and online. Addressing gaps in our laws that allow intimate partner violence to continue requires the adoption of new laws to create criminal offences and legal consequences that will serve as deterrents for would-be offenders, thereby potentially saving lives.

Women’s human rights defenders stand proud and strong in solidarity outside a government office. (AI generated image)

Advancing women’s rights is not the sole task of one entity – it requires coordination and commitment from international human rights organizations and domestically, by the executive, legislative, judiciary and of course, the hundreds of non-profit women’s advocacy groups and the determined individuals who fight for progress and provide support services on the front lines of violence against women.

Sadly, backlash has been escalating for the past decade and more political will is required to protect against gender-based violence, particularly as technology facilitates the perpetuation of regressive attitudes and new forms of harm. But progress in one nation State can inspire hope and inform progress in other States.

(September, 2026)

Call to Action

After reviewing the text of a bill, there are two options to participate in the process of supporting it.

Bill S-236: Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
Bill S-242: Georgina’s Law

Write a letter to your Member of Parliament (recommended for everyone):
- Expressing your opinions, personal experiences, recommendations, or legal arguments for or against a bill
- Find your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search
- Your contact information must be included, as this determines your riding and legitimizes your communication
Write a letter to a Senator that represents your province:
- Expressing your opinions, personal experiences, recommendations, or legal arguments for or against a bill
- Find your provincial Senators here: https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/
- Your contact information must be included, as this determines your riding and legitimizes your communication
Submit a brief to a Senate Committee

(recommended for organizations and knowledgeable individuals):

“Senate committees regularly invite individuals, experts, groups and organizations, lobbyists, public servants and ministers of the Crown to appear before them as witnesses to receive information relevant to a bill they are considering or a special study they are undertaking. There are two ways to participate in a committee’s study: by giving oral evidence (testimony) or by submitting a brief (written evidence).”

Click to access cmtes_how-to-participate-in-a-senate-study_final_2021oct_en.pdf

Footnotes:

[ia] (Lower table) Victims of police-reported family violence and intimate partner violence, by type of violence, gender and year, Canada, 2009 to 2024, rate per 100,000 population; Statistics Canada; Date modified: 2025-10-28. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251028/cg-a001-eng.htm

[ib] Indicator Framework – compliance and performance assessments; figure XII, page 110^[i] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf

[ii] “Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary timeframe to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

[Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]”

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml#ratification

[iii] https://rm.coe.int/168008482e

[iv] https://belemdopara.org/cim_mesecvi/cim/ Visited Sept. 20, 2026.

[v] https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

[vi] Para. 3, News release; June 23, 2026; Panama City; Global Affairs Canada.
https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2026/06/canada-ratifies-inter-american-convention-on-the-prevention-punishment-and-eradication-of-violence-against-women.html

[vii] Preamble, para. 3; Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence

against Women. https://www.oas.org/en/mesecvi/docs/belemdopara-english.pdf

[viii] Article 1, Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará); Organization of American States; 1994. https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

[ix] Recognition of femicide in the EU; Ionel Zamfir, Members’ Research Service; Published: May 2026 | Document number: PE 789.304 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2026/789304/EPRS_BRI(2026)789304_EN.pdf

[x] Femicide laws worldwide: 50 years of evolution and ongoing gaps; Marina Elefante and Siyi Wang; June 16, 2025 https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/femicide-laws-worldwide–50-years-of-evolution-and-ongoing-gaps

[xi] Which countries recognize the crime of femicide?; El Economista TV; YouTube; https://youtube.com/shorts/1UJ-7Duiyec?si=4Xlu6cVmYF2k8fsJ

[xii] Summary (a); Bill C-225: An Act to amend the Criminal Code; First Session, Forty-fifth Parliament. https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/bill/C-225/royal-assent

3-4 Charles III, 2025-2026

[xiii] Ibid, (b).

[xiv] Ibid, (c).

[xv] Ibid, (d).

[xvi] Global News; July 9, 2025; ‘I told her she was loved’: Witness recounts horrific attack that killed Kelowna mother, by Klaudia Van Emmerick. (Updated November 27, 2025) https://globalnews.ca/news/11282296/witness-recounts-attack-that-killed-kelowna-mother/

[xvii] CBC News; July 23, 2025; Family of mother killed in Kelowna, B.C., calls for changes to justice system in letter to PM by Michelle Morton. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mccourt-family-s-letter-to-pm-1.7592543

[xviii] Per Wagner C.J. and Kasirer, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ; (para. 4) Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21505/index.do

[xix] Per Wagner C.J. and Kasirer, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ; (para. 4) Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, May 15, 2026; SCC 16 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21505/index.do

[xx] CCPR/C/CAN/CO/7, pages 6-7. Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Canada; United Nations Human Rights Committee; 2 April 2026.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Article 7 (g); Intern-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women. (1994) https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

[xxiii] Lines 27-31, page 2, Protecting Victims Act (2025).

[xxiv] Figure 1: Infographic of annual economic costs of gender-based violence, 2025 dollars(page 9); The Cost of Inaction: Measuring the Economic Impact of Gender-Based Violence in BC; YWCA BC; page 9. https://ywcabc.org/sites/default/files/assets/media/file/2026-04%20/YWCABC_The_Cost_of_Inaction-Measuring_the_Economic_Impact_of_GBV_in_BC_Report.pdf

[xxv] Article 3; Intern-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women. (1994) https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

[xxvi] Article 8, Ibid.

[xxvii] Engagements, 2 (a); Bill S-242; first reading; First Session, Forty-fifth Parliament; Senate of Canada; https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/S-242/first-reading

[xxviii] (1420) Honourable Senator Manning; December 11, 2025; Debates of the Senate (Hansard) 1st Session, 45th Parliament; Volume 154, Issue 45 ; https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/451/debates/045db_2025-12-11-e#37
2026-10-02
Canada’s Fight Against Gender-Based Violence: Proposed Legislation Bill C-16
A young woman in a dark ambiguous setting, illuminated by a blue light, expresses fear and distress. (AI-generated)

Despite Canada’s strict equality-based anti-discrimination laws, in effect women and girls still face significant structural barriers, particularly in achieving protection from gender-based violence and in achieving justice when safeguards fail. Recently however, the Minister of Justice has tabled significant legislation that will amend the Criminal Code of Canada to better protect victims. Additionally, a Bill has been tabled in the Senate that will protect victims of intimate partner violence by extending support for national action. This article examines the international legal framework that support the major proposed amendments and examines their necessity within the Canadian context.

Protection from violence is a human right. That right extends to both public and private spheres. Yet the United Nations reports that “violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world.”[i] Femicide is its most extreme manifestations. The Canadian Femicide Observatory reports that 189 Canadian women and girls were killed by violence in 2023[ii], 187 in 2024, and another 137 in 2025[iii].

Legislative Acts:

Recent legislation introduced in Canada, pertinent to violence against women, includes bills S-242 and C-16.

S-242: Georgina’s Law

An Act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence

Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Fabian Manning

First reading: December 2, 2025;

Second reading December 11, 2025

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/S-242/first-reading

In 2014 Georgina McGrath nearly lost her life to intimate partner violence due to the severity of her injuries; she has been fighting alongside Senator Fabian Manning since 2017 to change the laws to protect others from such violence. Bill S-242 provides for the continuation of support for national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence and femicide, to be led by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality. But that alone is not enough.

C-16: Protecting Victims Act

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures);

Introduced in the House of Commons and sponsored by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Sean Fraser

First reading: December 9, 2025

Debate: January 26, 2026 –

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-16

Bill C-16 is an expansive piece of legislation spanning 166 pages of amendments to existing Acts. It would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Justice Act, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the National Defense Act, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child sexual abuse and exploitation material by persons who provide an Internet service, the Firearms Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Bill C-16 rightfully uses the gender-neutral term “victims” and covers harms that affect Canadians of all genders and ages. However, the content of the bill is reflective of issues that predominantly and adversely affect women, girls, and gender-diverse persons, thus constituting gender-based violence. (see Infographic 1)

Infographic 1: Statistics Canada; Government of Canada; Accessed January 31, 2026.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251028/cg-a001-png-eng.htm

Non-Discrimination:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 26[iv], provides for equal protection of the law, subject to the principle of non-discrimination.

Article 26 (ICCPR)

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The general principle[v] of non-discrimination is also found in other core legal human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) [vi].

Article 2

States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women and, to this end, undertake… (e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise.

Violence against women is discrimination

In 1992 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted General Recommendation No. 19, which stated that “Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.”[vii] It further clarified that gender-based violence “includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty.”[viii]

The Committee defined gender-based violence as “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.”[ix] Additionally, “the underlying consequences of these forms of gender-based violence help to maintain women in subordinate roles and contribute to their low level of political participation and to their lower level of education, skills and work opportunities.”[x] This in turn undermines women and girls’ rights to education (Article 13) and to work (Article 6), which are protected under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, the poverty that women are kept in contributes to the increase of sex trafficking and other forms of exploitation, putting women and girls at further risk of violence and abuse.

Criminal Code additions: coercive control and femicide

The two most significant amendments to the Criminal Code that Bill C-16 provides for are to “create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner”. Bill C-16 also recognizes the murder of a female person as femicide, and as first degree murder, under certain circumstances, including:

(i) the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,

(ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence,

(iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking,

or

(iv) the murder is motivated by hate

Crucially, by recognizing coercive control as a criminal offence, femicide may be averted before it is committed. This is not just a matter of crime prevention – it is a matter of life and death.

There is a growing movement among democratic nation States to criminalize coercive control, which moves beyond an incident-based model of intimate partner violence and instead recognizes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that extends over a period. This also looks beyond acts of physical violence and considers non-physical violence.

“Coercive control may involve behaving in ways that create or intensify power imbalances in the relationship, making an intimate partner dependent on and subordinate to the perpetrator. Coercively controlling actions could include creating economic dependency, reputational dependency, and dependency in social relations.”[xi]

Research by Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Crystal Giesbrecht, reveals that “intimate partner femicide often emerges from abusive relationships marked by coercive control and intimate partner violence.”[xii] “In some cases, perpetrators completely dominate all aspects of the victim’s life. Coercive control often results in a constant state of fear, reinforced by threats as well as past experiences of violence. Dutton and Goodman (2005) explain ways that perpetrators control victims, including ‘creating the expectation of negative consequences, creating or exploiting the victim’s vulnerabilities, wearing down the victim’s resistance, and facilitating—and then exploiting—emotional dependency’ (pp. 748–749). The very nature of this form of abuse creates significant barriers to ending the relationship.”[xiii]

Furthermore, “technological advancements have allowed perpetrators to increase their level of control even when they are not physically together, as well as continue their surveillance and harassment post-separation.”[xiv] Bill C-16 adds the usage of ‘deepfakes’ and the threat of their usage, to the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

A man with headphones on watches his ex-girlfriend on multiple screens through the use of spy software. (AI-generated)

Research into coercive control reveals that “these behaviours also heighten the risk of lethality. In Australia, a study published in 2020 by the Domestic Violence Death Review Team in the state of New South Wales found all but one of the 112 cases of intimate-partner homicides analyzed were preceded by instances of coercive and controlling behaviour. In Canada, researchers who looked at femicides from 2015 to 2019 found behaviours such as stalking, intimidation, isolation and threats were frequent.[xv]

“Several studies show that coercive control in a relationship increases the risk of serious or fatal violence, especially when the victim is trying to leave or has just separated from her partner. For almost 1 in 3 victims, murder or attempted murder was the first act of physical violence.”[xvi]

Another adverse impact of gender-based violence is the psychological harm it perpetuates. According to a 2022 article by the Globe and Mail “Though coercive control is one of the least understood forms of violence, the psychological consequences of this kind of controlling behaviour can be long-lasting.”[xvii]

A tragic and often over-looked adverse impact of abuse is the suicide rate of its victims. The Canadian non-profit organization Battered Women’s Support Services reports that “victims of domestic violence are up to three times more likely to attempt suicide”[xviii].

Psychological harm manifests into physical harm. Therefore, the prevention of gender-based violence is simultaneously suicide prevention. Again, Bill C-16 is literally a matter of life and death.

A crime against liberty

Evan Stark, preeminent researcher and author of Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life (Oxford Press; 2007) suggests that coercive control is a liberty crime.

I think we need a law that punishes offenders at the same level that we would punish people that take hostages, or kidnap people, because what we’re really dealing with, although the analogy’s by no means perfect, is a kind of domestic terrorism. A kind of domestic hostage taking in which the victim has no outside to escape to, because the supposed safe place, the relationship, the home, the family network, has been identified as the point of imprisonment and entrapment.”

(“Power and Control – Domestic Violence in America”; 2010; Peter Cohn – Director, Producer)

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) proscribes that

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.[xix]

Although Article 9 of the ICCPR is commonly used in reference to restrictions on liberty by State authorities, the Covenant is to be considered in its entirety. The preamble proscribes an obligation to individuals.

“Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant”.[xx]

The State has obligations to uphold the commitments of the Covenant, as stated in Article 2, paragraph 2.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

Bill C-16 would support this obligation in the context of coercive control.

Ironically, one criticism of Bill C-16 argues that the right to liberty of perpetrators will be violated by the mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of crimes under the Protecting Victims Act. Deprivations of liberty by the State must be proscribed by law, proportional to the crimes, and necessary to protect the rights of others. That includes the protection of the rights of victims.

Femicide is protected against under the right to life

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, declared that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[xxi]

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) a legally binding instrument, reiterates that right in Article 6, paragraph 1 – “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

The right to life entails obligations on the State that are both negative – not to arbitrarily deprive individuals of life – and positive – the duty to protect individuals from other individuals, also known as the duty to ‘protect’. Criminal law and justice arise out of this positive obligation.

The United Nations Human Rights Council published General Comment No. 36 (2019), which clarifies the obligations of the State and the duty to protect life.

18. The second sentence of article 6 (1) provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals as may be necessary to give effect to the right to life. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to adopt any appropriate laws or other measures in order to protect life from all reasonably foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities. (…)[xxii]

Those positive obligations are further articulated in paragraph 23:

“The duty to protect the right to life requires States parties to take special measures of protection towards persons in vulnerable situations whose lives that been placed at particular risk because of specific threats or pre-existing patterns of violence. Such persons include human rights defenders (…) and victims of domestic violence and gender-based violence and human trafficking.”[xxiii]

When unlawful deprivations of life occur, the right to life also entails an obligation to conduct an impartial investigation and to prosecute the perpetrators.

“Any deprivation of life based on discrimination in law or in fact is, ipso facto, arbitrary in nature. Femicide, which constitutes an extreme form of gender-based violence that is directed against girls and women, is a particularly grave form of assault on the right to life.”[xxiv]

A woman expresses extreme psychological distress as she screams while holding her hands to her temples.
(AI-generated)

The right to health:

Violence against women is also a violation of the right to health. Health must be thought of as extending to both physical and psychological states. Recalling the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which proscribes the right to health[xxv].

Article 12 (ICESCR)

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

A woman who is perpetually unsafe or in a state of fear is at risk of compromised health, beyond physical injury resulting directly from violence. There has been extensive research finding links between chronic stress and increased morbidity and mortality. Stress is a reaction to a perceived threat; “chronic stress has a significant effect on the immune system that ultimately manifest an illness”[xxvi]. Ongoing threats impact the immune system and increase inflammation in the body, leading to illness and even autoimmune disorder.

Furthermore, the effects of violence against women continue to create barriers preventing women from achieving substantial equality by affecting their fundamental social and economic rights, beyond the right to health. It also extends to the right to education and the right to work.

If a woman is not safe, she cannot thrive.

A woman tries to push someone’s hands away from her throat. A much larger ambiguous figure looms in front of her, with arms extended towards her throat. (AI-generated)

The privacy argument

Protection from violence is a human right that extends to both public and private spheres.

The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, confirms this in a framework of global norms and standards for national and international action. Article 1 defines violence against women as ‘any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life’[xxvii].

Additionally, the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, aims to achieve gender equality through various targets to be achieved by 2030. SDG Target 5.2 seeks to “eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation”.[xxviii]

The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime also provides a suitable response to the issue of the private sphere.

“To effectively prevent femicides, targeted policies are needed that address the specific forms of gender-based violence perpetrated in the private sphere, as there are key differences in how intimate partner and other family member femicides occur.

Although countries have made efforts to prevent femicides, such killings persist at worryingly high levels. In many cases, femicides are the tragic end to a pattern of ongoing violence, meaning that with the timely and appropriate intervention, they could be prevented.”

Research shows that female intimate partner homicides are often linked to certain risk factors related to the person committing the crime or the situation surrounding the intentional killing. Common risk factors for intimate partner violence that could lead to femicide include: access to firearms, coercive control, previous history of violence and non-fatal strangulation, stalking, relationship separation and substance use, such as alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, combined with other underlying factors such as lack of social support and accumulation of stressful events.”[xxix]

Critics of Bill C-16 rely on the right to privacy as one argument against government interference in private and intimate relationships. But the right to life is the ‘supreme right’, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, and therefore arguably more valuable than the right to privacy.

International human rights law is moving towards a victim centered approach to criminal justice, which, as a global leader in human rights, Canada should implement.

A young woman confidently looks into the camera; she is standing in a city street with a blurred Canada flag in the background.
(AI-generated)

Conclusion:

Whether or not the injustices that these bills seek to address affect you personally, they almost certainly affect some woman or girl that you know. Intimate partner violence is often kept secret due to the danger it poses and the attached stigma; its impact often only comes to light once it is too late.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus “Violence against women is one of humanity’s oldest and most pervasive injustices, yet still one of the least acted upon.” (…) “No society can call itself fair, safe or healthy while half its population lives in fear. Ending this violence is not only a matter of policy; it is a matter of dignity, equality and human rights. Behind every statistic is a woman or girl whose life has been forever altered. Empowering women and girls is not optional, it’s a prerequisite for peace, development and health. A safer world for women is a better world for everyone.”[xxx]

While bills S-242 and C-16 and demonstrate encouraging initiatives, they are meaningless unless passed, implemented, monitored and adapted as necessary. Furthermore, in criminal law, they become dead letter unless adequately enforced. Impunity for violence against women and children has an enabling effect that if not resolved, will escalate in incidence. Progress is possible but is contingent on political will. At the time this article is published Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act has only completed the first state in the legislative process; it must move forwards before another life is lost. That life could be your own.

Call to Action:

Here’s how you can help. After reviewing the text of a bill, there are two options to participate in the process of supporting it.

Write a letter to your Member of Parliament (recommended for everyone):
- Expressing your opinions, personal experiences, recommendations, or legal arguments for or against a bill
- Find your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search
- Your contact information must be included, as this determines your riding and legitimizes your communication
Write a letter to a Senator that represents your province:
- Find your provincial Senator here: https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/
Submit a brief (recommended for organizations and knowledgeable individuals):

1. Submit a brief to the House of Commons:

“A brief is a written submission that provides opinions, comments and recommendations on a subject being studied by a parliamentary committee. Any individual or organization may submit a brief to a committee of the House of Commons.”

https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/guides/brief-e.html

2. Submit a brief to a Senate Committee:

“Senate committees regularly invite individuals, experts, groups and organizations, lobbyists, public servants and ministers of the Crown to appear before them as witnesses to receive information relevant to a bill they are considering or a special study they are undertaking. There are two ways to participate in a committee’s study: by giving oral evidence (testimony) or by submitting a brief (written evidence).”

Click to access cmtes_how-to-participate-in-a-senate-study_final_2021oct_en.pdf

[i] Digital violence is real violence. There is #NoExcuse for online abuse; International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women; United Nations online publication; November 25,2025.

[ii] Call it Femicide 2024 Report; infographic report; Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability; https://femicideincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2024Infographic-ENG-1.pdf

[iii] Canadian Observatory for Justice and Accountability; https://femicideincanada.ca/

[iv] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

[v] ‘General principles’ (of international law) are legally recognized as legitimate sources of international law.

[vi] Para. 1; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[vii] Para. 1; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Para. 6; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[x] Para. 11; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[xi] https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/mapafvc-cbapcvf/review-analyse.html

[xii] Flying under and through the radar: Tactics used by intimate partner femicide perpetrators to evade interventions; Martín Hernán Di Marco and Dabney P. Evans; International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Volume 82, September 2025, 100767. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061625000436?via%3Dihub

[xiii] Giesbrecht, Crystal J. 2024. “The Need for a Canadian Criminal Code Offence of Coercive Control”. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 9 (1):pages 33-39. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.362.

[xiv] Carmen Gill, Ph.D. and Mary Aspinall, Ph.D. RESEARCH PAPER

Understanding coercive control in the context of intimate partner violence in Canada: How to address the issue through the criminal justice system? Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice Canada; 20 April 2020 https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/publications/research-recherche/ucc-ccc.html#TOC-5-2

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] https://coercive-control.ca/content-library/coercive-control-danger

[xvii] Molly Hayes, Elizabeth Renzetti, and Tavia Grant; March 13, 2026. Coercive control can be a life or death issue in relationships. But few people even know how to recognize it, Globe and Mail.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-coercive-control-can-be-a-life-or-death-issue-in-relationships-but-few/

[xviii] 4 Facts About Intimate Partner Violence and Suicide (World Suicide Prevention Day); September 10, 2024. https://www.bwss.org/4-facts-about-intimate-partner-violence-and-suicide-world-suicide-prevention-day/

[xix] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 1966; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1948; UN General Assembly https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

[xxii] United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019. https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

[xxiii] I United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019. https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

[xxiv] Para. 61; United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019. (from A/HRC/20/16, para. 21.) https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

[xxv] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights

[xxvi] Salleh MR. Life event, stress and illness. Malays J Med Sci. 2008 Oct;15(4):9-18. PMID: 22589633; PMCID: PMC3341916. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3341916/

[xxvii] UNGA Res 48/104. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993). https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/48/104

[xxviii] https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5#targets_and_indicators

[xxix] Preventing femicide, page 19, UNODC and UN Women, Femicides in 2024: Global Estimates of Intimate Partner/Family Member Femicides (United Nations publication, 2025) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/femicides-in-2024-global-estimates-of-intimate-partner-family-member-femicides-en.pdf

[xxx] https://www.who.int/news/item/19-11-2025-lifetime-toll–840-million-women-faced-partner-or-sexual-violence
2026-03-08
When abortion is legal but inaccessible: an analysis under international law

Women’s reproductive freedoms are rapidly regressing and facing increasing restrictions around the globe. Women in the United States, Poland and Malta are dying due to restrictive laws and lack of accessibility. And according to the European Citizens’ Initiative, My Voice, My Choice: For Safe and Accessible Abortion more than 20 million women in the EU do not have access to safe, affordable abortion. Conversely, in Canada abortion is legal and covered by primary healthcare. However, on July 25th, 2025, women’s advocacy organizations across the nation sounded the alarm in a Joint Statement to the new Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney warning of the regressive impact that proposed austerity measures will have on women’s rights and gender equality. The budget for the Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) Department proposed 80%^[i]less funding over each of the next four years as compared with the 2025-26 budget. The impact will be felt not just in the WAGE Department, but in local feminist organizations, women’s shelters, sexual assault services and more, including abortion facilitation services. Canadian women living in rural and remote areas often lack the means of access to safe, legal abortions due to the unavailability of the necessary healthcare services in their regions; the scope of this impact will likely be extended given the circumstances. In the context of reduced accessibility and austerity measures, what legal arguments might women’s rights advocates depend upon? The following is a legal analysis of the international human rights obligations pertinent to the situation in Canada, which may also apply to other States with the same obligations.

The Right to Health – Art. 12 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

The ICESCR provides for the right to the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”^[ii].

Article 12

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

While the fundamental right to health is subject to progressive development, States should nevertheless ensure that it is moving towards its full realization, as stated in Article 2 of the Covenant.

Non- Discrimination

Article 2 paragraph 2 of the ICESCR provides for non-discrimination in the implementation of the Covenant – “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

Non-discrimination is not subject to progressive development – it must be respected immediately upon accession to the Covenant. However, according to the World Economic Forum “we still face wide gaps in research and treatment ability for areas that are unique to women”^[iii], which is in contravention of Art. 2, para. 2 ICESCR. Maternal health, and abortion are just two of many areas of treatment that pertain exclusively to the health of persons of female sex (females). Even if a law doesn’t single out females in fact, if there is no equivalent adverse effect on males, then the law may be found to be discriminatory.^[iv] Health inequality is a result of systemic discrimination against women and gender diverse persons, and it must be compliant with international law.

In 2000, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), according to which:

“To eliminate discrimination against women, there is a need to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy for promoting women’s right to health throughout their life span. Such a strategy should include interventions aimed at the prevention and treatment of diseases affecting women, as well as policies to provide access to a full range of high quality and affordable health care, including sexual and reproductive services. A major goal should be reducing women’s health risks, particularly lowering rates of maternal mortality and protecting women from domestic violence. The realization of women’s right to health requires the removal of all barriers interfering with access to health services, education and information, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. It is also important to undertake preventive, promotive and remedial action to shield women from the impact of harmful traditional cultural practices and norms that deny them their full reproductive rights.” (author’s emphasis)

Pregnancy can be both a direct and indirect cause of harm to women. Maternal morbidity and mortality are direct consequences of pregnancy, especially for adolescents. Indirectly, lack of access to safe abortion services can result in the administration of unregulated and unsafe abortions that can cost a woman or girl her life. Furthermore, sex or gender-based violence and femicide can be tragic indirect consequences of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy by an intimate partner or family members.

As a State party to the Convention of Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Canada submitted its tenth periodic report as proscribed by Article 18 of the Convention. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in their 2024 Concluding Observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada^[v]recommended that Canada “ensure access to legal abortion services in all provinces and territories, including for women from disadvantaged groups”. Furthermore, the Committee cited “the persistent barriers in the public health system hindering access to abortion care, disproportionately affecting women from disadvantaged groups, women in remote and rural areas and undocumented migrants”^[vi].

Canada’s counterargument

Canada argues that it has one of the world’s lowest populations densities with just 4.6 people per km^{2 [vii]} per km², second only to Russia. Extending all aspects of healthcare across a territory of almost 10,000,000 km^{2 [viii]} is challenging and expensive. Consequently, the Canada Health Act (1985), section 3, provides that “it is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.”^[ix] (author’s emphasis) But constitutional law must be in alignment with international law.

Positive obligations of the State

The right to health requires positive obligations from the State including the duty to fulfil and the duty to promote.

The duty to fulfil the right to health requires due attention to the four A’s: availability, accessibility, adequacy and acceptability. The acceptability of healthcare, which is also known as quality, is explained by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO “considers several aspects of quality, including whether Universal Health Care (UHC) is timely – reducing wait times and harmful delays – and equitable – providing care that does not vary in quality on account of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic location, and socio-economic status”^[x]. Reducing harmful delays for abortion is essential.

The duty to promote, in the case of reproductive healthcare, means ensuring availability of education and information on access to necessary services including contraception, family planning, adoption, emergency contraception and medical abortion options.

Territorial scope

Although Canada is a federal State which is divided into provinces and territories with a decentralized administration of healthcare under each, any obligations on the State apply to its entire territory. This rule of law is affirmed in several sources of international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), Art. 29 on the territorial scope of treaties[xi].

In its General Comment No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) addresses the devolution of powers.

“…The decentralization of power, through devolution and delegation of Government powers in both unitary and federal States, does not in any way negate of reduce the direct responsibility of the State party’s national or federal Government to fulfil its obligations to all women within its jurisdiction. (…) States parties have to make sure that the devolved authorities have the necessary financial, human and other resources to effectively and fully implement the obligations of the State party under the Convention. (…) Furthermore, there must be safeguards to ensure that decentralization or devolution does not lead to discrimination with regard to the enjoyment of rights by women in different regions.”

Essentially, the State (Canada) may be found responsible for acts or omissions by provincial authorities that violate human rights.

Key Human Rights Inquiries and case law

Inaccessibility of healthcare provisions can be a cause of indirect discrimination and of de facto or substantive inequality. This has been affirmed through UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies and case law alike.

According to the CEDAW Committee’s General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, paragraph 18“Violations of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as forced sterilization, forced abortion, forced pregnancy, criminalization of abortion, denial or delay of safe abortion and/or post-abortion care, forced continuation of pregnancy, and abuse and mistreatment of women and girls seeking sexual and reproductive health information, goods and services, are forms of gender-based violence that, depending on the circumstances, may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”^[xii]

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) considered a communication^[xiii] submitted Amanda Jane Mellet against Ireland in 2013. She was a married women who found out in the twenty-first week of pregnancy that her foetus had congenital heart defects that would be fatal, either in utero or shortly after birth. Mellet was deeply concerned over the potential suffering of her baby and considered abortion to be the best option. However, abortion was illegal in Ireland even if the impairment would be fatal.

“2.4 On 28 November 2011, she flew with her husband to Liverpool and the following day she received medication at the Women’s Hospital to begin the process of terminating her pregnancy. On 1 December, she received further medication to induce labour. She was in labour for 36 hours and on 2 December she delivered a stillborn baby girl. Still feeling weak and bleeding, she had to travel back to Dublin, only 12 hours after the delivery, as they could not afford to stay any longer in the United Kingdom.⁽¹⁾There is no financial assistance from the State or from private health insurers for women who terminate pregnancies abroad.”^[xiv]

(…)

“3.3 (…) The travel abroad was also a significant source of added anxiety and exposed her to obstacles which impinged on her physical and mental integrity and dignity. She had to make preparations for the travel; was deprived of the support of her family; had to stay in a foreign and uncomfortable environment while in Liverpool; and had to spend a sum of money which was difficult for her to raise. While waiting at the airport to fly home, only 12 hours after the termination, she was bleeding, weak and light-headed.”^[xv]

The HRC found Ireland in violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides a non-derogable right which states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”^[xvi].

The Committee also found that Ireland violated article 17 of the ICCPR, which prohibits interference with private life, and article 26 which guarantees equality before the law.

In the context of Mellet v Ireland, the State of Ireland prohibited and criminalized abortion expect in cases where the mother’s life was at risk and furthermore declined to provide information on resources where an abortion could legally be performed given the extenuating circumstances. The Irish law provided no access to remedy and denied Mellet post-abortion care, including grievance counselling, which they only provided to mothers who had delivered a stillborn foetus.

The circumstance of travelling 218 km to access a legal abortion, as did Mrs. Mellet, is entirely conceivable given Canada’s vast territorial expanse. Additionally, how far along in pregnancy a woman is can limit the number of healthcare facilities available to perform the medical abortion. According to Abortion Access Tracker “because of limitations to residents of certain regions, as well as overwhelming demand while being severely under-resourced, there is low availability of abortion care after 20 weeks in Canada.” Therefore hypothetically, in cases that are sufficiently analogous, Canada may too be found in violation of the Convention Against Torture, of which it ratified in 1987. (The U.S. is even more likely given the current circumstances; even though the U.S. hasn’t ratifed the treaty, the prohibition of torture has a jus cogens status, a status of non-derogability, and has become a part of customary international law. )

This obstacle to the right to health in Canada adversely affects women and girls from rural and remote regions. And without any funding for travel expenses, including meals, accommodation, potential airfare or ferry costs, lost time from work, and childcare costs, lack of financial support will significantly and adversely affect women and girls from lower socio-economic statuses.

Canadian non-profit organizations like Abortion Care Canada and Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights have been providing support to help women facing barriers to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. But the Liberals have released a draft budget for the next few years in Canada, with a notable 80% decrease in funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) due to the expiration of time-limited spending, without renewal. If abortion access is already an issue in 2025, what will it be like in 2026 or 2027? Abortion Care Canada states that the change in funding not only impacts the ability to provide services but may result in full organizational closure.^[xvii]

Consequences to abortion inaccessibility

The United Nations Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has expressed concern over the potentially life-threatening consequences of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions and preventable maternal deaths^[xviii]. And, according to a study by Doctors without Borders/Medicins sans Frontieres on unsafe abortions “the life-threatening consequences include severe hemorrhage, sepsis (severe general infection), poisoning, uterine perforation, or damage to other internal organs. A woman may require urgent hospital care for a blood transfusion, major reparative surgery, or a hysterectomy—the complete, and irreversible, removal of the uterus.”^[xix]

In October of 2025 the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that addresses Preventable maternal mortality and human rights^[^xx]. The Council noted with concern that “the risk of maternal mortality is higher for adolescents and highest for girls under 15 years of age and that complications in pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death and severe morbidity among adolescent girls in low- and middle-income countries, acknowledging that the issue also persists in high-income countries.”^[xxi]

The obstacles to obtaining a legal abortion can result in the some of the same adverse outcomes as it does in States where abortion is illegal, including attempts at unsafe abortion, maternal death, susceptibility to remaining in an abusive relationship, increased vulnerability to lack of education and/or lack of employment, loss of financial independence and stability, suicide and infanticide. If they survive, the cost of an unwanted pregnancy may be a lifetime of hardship for mother and child alike.

In addition to the cost of an unwanted pregnancy on an individual and child, the community and ultimately the State pay a price too. Support may start with a pre-natal shelter^[xxii], natal supplement^[xxiii], infant formula^[xxiv], and other supplemental support. Then there is the standard Canada child benefit (CCB) at up to $7,997 per year for each child under 6 and $6748 per year for each child aged 6-17, as well as provincial income assistance (in B.C. $1405 per month for a single parent with one child^[xxv]), totalling approximately $25,000 annually for a single parent with a young child. This cost to Canadian taxpayers is significantly higher than the cost of accommodating access to abortion services or preventative measures including education and contraception.

Recommendations by International Human Rights Treaty Bodies

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) conducted a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Canada’s human rights performance in 2023. The issue of inaccessibility of abortion services was cited in both the Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Canada^[xxvi] and in the Report of the Working Group^[xxvii], with concerns expressed by Iceland and Norway. Canada responded to the recommendations of the Working Group as “noted”^[xxviii] – a vague acknowledgement that makes no promises.

Additionally, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), a core human rights legal instrument which Canada ratified and acceded to in 1976, expressed the same concerns. In the Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada^[xxix] the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provided these recommendations to Canada:

51. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the delegation on measures taken to facilitate access to legal abortion services. It remains concerned, however, at disparities in access to such services and to affordable contraceptives (art. 12)

52. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure access to legal abortion services in all provinces and territories. The Committee also recommends that the State party ensure that physicians’ conscientious objection does not impede women’s access to legal abortion services. The Committee also recommends that affordable contraceptives be made accessible and available to all, and in particular those living in remote areas and those living in poverty. The Committee refers to its General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health.

Furthermore, Canada has been urged to ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the interest of enabling the political participation of citizens and NGOs alike. Women’s rights advocacy groups should also continue to encourage ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR as it would enable individuals and groups to file complaints to the Committee in cases of State non-compliance with the Covenant, following exhaustion of local remedies.

Conclusion:

Could Canada be found in violation of Article 12 (the right to health) of the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights? Or worse?

When the UN treaty monitoring bodies, such as the CEDAW Committee or the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights find that a States’ actions or omission are not in conformity with their treaty obligations, they will consider the circumstances of each specific case. Whether or not a States’ actions or omissions were the result of extraordinary circumstances that are considered permissible or not, would be up to the Committee to decide. Hence, it is only if the State’s treaty performance is challenged that the ruling would emerge.

[i] Table 7: Planned three-year spending on core responsibilities and internal services; Planned Spending and human resources; Women and Gender Equality Canada’s 2025-26 Departmental Plan; Government of Canada website: https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/transparency/departmental-plans/2025-2026.html#toc4 Accessed Sept. 14, 2025

[ii] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; 1966; adopted by the General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)

[iii] Women’s health: Why is the health of at least half the global population so often overlooked? Deeptha Khanna; January 2, 2023; https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/01/women-health-gap-davos-2023/ (Accessed August 27, 2025)

[iv] See for example Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28, [2020] 3 S.C.R. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18510/index.do

[v] Pg. 15; paragraph 38 (e); CEDAW Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada; UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10; October 30, 2024.

[vi] Pg. 14; paragraph 37 (e); CEDAW Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada; UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10; October 30, 2024.

[vii] Hannah Ritchie and Edouard Mathieu (2019) – “Which countries are most densely populated?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/most-densely-populated-countries’ [Online Resource] Accessed October 24, 2025.

[viii] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-regions.html Accessed October 24, 2025.

[ix] Section 3; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/page-1.html#h-151484 Accessed October 30, 2025.

[x] Core components of the right to health; Key facts; Human Rights; WHO; December 1, 2023; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20health%20includes,goods%20and%20services%20for%20all (Accessed Aug 21, 2025)

[xi] Article 29, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969); Entered into force on 27 January 1980.

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331 https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

[xii] Para. 18, page 7; General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19; UN CEDAW Committee; CEDAW/C/GC/35; 26 July 2017.

[xiii] Human Rights Committee; Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2324/2013;CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013; distributed 17 Nov. 2016; https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013

[xiv] Ibid, para. 2.2 and 2.4; page. 2.

[xv] Ibid, para. 3.3, page 3.

¹The author states that they spent €3,000 in total, including the €2,000 fee they paid for the procedure.

[xvi] Art. 7,Part II, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; adopted by UN General Assembly res. 2200A (XXI) 1966; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

[xvii] https://abortioncarecanada.ca/the-autonomy-fund/ Accessed October 25, 2025.

[xviii] Para. 2; CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1; https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2015/06/un-womens-committee-makes-inquiry-sexual-and-reproductive-health-rights-philippines (accessed August 29, 2025)

[xix] Unsafe abortion: A preventable danger; Unsafe abortion is one of the five leading causes of maternal mortality, and the only one that is preventable. Medicins sans Frontieres; March 7, 2019; https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/unsafe-abortion-preventable-danger#:~:text=For%20women%20who%20use%20these%20unsafe%20methods%2C,complete%2C%20and%20irreversible%2C%20removal%20of%20the%20uterus. Accessed Sept. 28, 2025

[xx] Resolution A/HRC/60/L.20/Rev.1 https://docs.un.org/en/a/hrc/60/l.20/rev.1 Adopted by the Human Rights Council; 60th Session, October 2025.

[xxi] Ibid. Preamble, page 4, paragraph 7.

[xxii] “If you are pregnant, you may be able to get money to secure or maintain stable housing before your child is born. You must have no spouse and have no other dependent children.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/income-assistance/on-assistance/supplements Accessed Sept. 15, 2025.

[xxiii] “If you are pregnant or have an infant less than thirteen months old, you may be able to get an extra $80 per month.” Ibid.

[xxiv] For your child’s first 12 months, you could get money for: Regular infant formula. This is when the child has a medical need for regular infant formula; Specialized infant formula. This is only if your child has a medical condition that requires special formula. You may be able to get this longer than 12 months if it’s medically required; Ibid.

[xxv] https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/income-assistance/on-assistance Accessed Sept. 15, 2025.

[xxvi] Pg. 7; point 66 sub-heading “Right to health”; Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Canada – Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; UN document A/HRC/WG.6/44/CAN/3; September 4, 2023.

[66. JS3 stated that, although abortion was a decriminalized health-care service, many people lacked access to the public health system entirely and others faced prohibitive barriers to abortion care, including travel costs, long wait times, immigration status and intimate partner violence.119 (Joint submission 3 submitted by: The Sexual Rights Initiative, Ottawa (Canada); Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights; Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic; Justice for Migrant Workers; J4MW-YWCA Hamilton – The Community Research Platform at McMaster University, Sexual Rights Initiative)]

[xxvii] Pg. 16, points 37.186 (by Iceland) and 37.187 (by Norway); Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Canada; UN document A/HRC/55/12; December 19, 2023.

[xxviii] Pg. 2 (Recommendations and Canadian Position); Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Canada – Addendum – Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review; UN Doc. A/HRC/55/12/Add.1; March 15, 2024.

[xxix] Pg. 9; paragraphs 51 and 52; Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada; E/C.12/CAN/CO/6; March 23, 2016.

2025-11-05
Does Canada’s Online News Act interfere with freedom of expression under international law?
During a time of radical political transformation of the global landscape, knowledge is power – yet for Canadians, freedom of expression has been impaired since Bill C-18, the Online News Act, reached royal assent on June 22, 2023^[i]. Freedom of expression is a core value of democracy and therefore must be carefully guarded.

The Act proposed a regime whereby digital intermediaries, including search engines and social media platforms, would be regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and must bargain with eligible Canadian news businesses to provide compensation when their news content is shared via links on these intermediaries. The intention is for tech giants to contribute to the sustainability of the Canadian news market. However, in an ongoing dispute between the Government of Canada and U.S. based non-State actor Meta Platforms Inc., Meta has argued that they already provide significant value through referral traffic for those news publishers and therefore refuse to pay compensation. In protest Meta has been blocking content from legacy Canadian news agencies from being seen or shared by platform users for over two years now, as many Canadians have noticed. Google intended to take similar measures but reached an agreement with the Government of Canada in November 2023^[ii]. Regardless of which entity is at fault, State or non-State actor, the implementation of Bill C-18 and its resulting dispute is in effect breaching international human rights standards, specifically freedom of expression.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whose department is responsible for Bill C-18, is aware, Canada acceded to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Optional Protocol in 1976. Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Covenant provides that

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

Article 19 makes clear that freedom of expression extends to everyone, not just the press, and that it concerns both imparting and receiving information. But Canadians are currently unable to receive news from reliable sources while using popular social media platforms. Therefore, our right to receive information is impaired. We are also unable to comment on news articles, therefore impairing our right to impart information. Additionally, our right to political participation is impaired, all of which are essential to both democracy and women’s rights.

While there are certain permissible restrictions on freedom of expression, according to Art. 19 para. 3^[iii] of the ICCPR, this situation does not meet the criteria. These restrictions are not necessary for the respect or reputation of others, for the protection of national security, of ordre public, or for public health or morals. And although the restrictions Canadians face resulting from Bill C-18 are not restrictions de jure, they are restrictions de facto.

Would a court consider the same criteria for restrictions in fact, as it does for restrictions in law? According to the Government of Canada’s analysis on Section 2 (b), “3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?”^[iv]:

ii) Effect:

Even if a purpose is compatible with section 2(b), an individual may be able to demonstrate that the effect of the government action infringes their section 2(b) right. In this situation, the individual must show that their expression advances one or more of the values underlying section 2(b), e.g., participation in social and political decision making, the search for truth and individual self-fulfillment (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Ramsden, supra). While more recent Supreme Court decisions still refer to this principle of showing the effect of government action, the Court does not appear to apply with a great deal of vigor the requirement that an individual show an advancement of values, tending instead to easily find a restriction of section 2(b).

If a court concludes that the government action, in either purpose or effect, infringes section 2(b), it will then consider whether the limit on free expression is justifiable under section 1.

Therefore, regardless of the purpose of the government action, a court may find the effect of a government action to infringe upon our freedom of expression.

What is the effect of this restriction on freedom of expression?

In an era rife with misinformation and disinformation, citizens are urged to fact-check information through well-respected news agencies with high journalistic standards before sharing content online. However, fact-checking through trusted news agencies Instagram or Facebook accounts is attempted in vain. Visits to news accounts read “People in Canada can’t see this content – In response to Canadian government legislation, news content can’t be viewed in Canada”.

The impairment of our ability to fact-check runs contrary to Canada’s commitment to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation. In a fast-paced world it is not always convenient nor efficient to fact-check information through a Google search, which is why so many people rely on “instant” information through platforms like Instagram. Furthermore, direct site visits to news publishers can often be blocked by pay walls, making it more difficult to discern the facts from a credible source.

Countering the spread of misinformation was particularly crucial during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic, however, alternative news agencies were more accessible than highly credible sources. Unfortunately this same effect has taken place throughout wars and major elections.

In that respect, “…as part of a series of reports on coordinated inauthentic behaviour, Meta reported that, in 2021, it had removed 52 networks found in 34 countries that had ‘engaged in coordinated efforts to manipulate or corrupt public debate for a strategic goal, while relying centrally on fake accounts to mislead people about who’s behind them’.”^[v] The 2022 Report of the UN Secretary General – Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms – concluded that “States bear the primary responsibility to counter disinformation by respecting, protecting and fulfilling the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to privacy and to public participation.”^[vi]

The right to political participation

According to research on Trust in Media published in July 2024 by Pollara Strategic Insights, 33% of Canadians and 57% of Gen Zs use social media as their primary news source^[vii]. One important difference between receiving information on a dedicated news app from receiving it on a social media app is the ability of the reader to directly engage in democratic dialogue in a social media feed. This direct access to democratic engagement is particularly important to women and others from marginalized groups.

The impairment of the right to impart information undermines the enjoyment of the right to political participation. Arguably, sharing opinions on social media that are pertinent to political issues, regardless of the content of one’s opinions, is an exercise not only of the freedom of expression but also of the right to political participation and democratic engagement. This assertion is affirmed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada:

“Expressing political opinions or sharing political content on social media is a form of political expression and is protected by the Charter”^[viii].

The 2024 article Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement in Science Direct says, “The act of citizens being both politically and civically engaged is a known benefit to society, which is collectively known as ‘democratic engagement.’”^[ix]

Social media has become one of the most powerful political tools of the 21^st century. Therefore, without the ability to access, read, share, and participate in political dialogue on issues that concern us and shape our lives, Canada could be found in violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)for failing to reach an agreement with social media giant Meta Platforms Inc.

In June of 2023 up to 5% of Canadians social media users were included in a test for whom Meta blocked news content; they continue to experience this block, which has been extended in application to 100% of Canadians since August 2023. This block has impaired Canadians’ right to freedom of expression and the right to meaningful political engagement at the time of a generational crisis. We cannot defend our civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without the guarantee of freedom of expression aligned with international standards.

The international responsibilities of trans-national corporations

Although Meta is directly responsible for the infringement on Canadians’ human rights, the State is indirectly responsible. Human rights must be respected, protected and fulfilled through the regulation of non-State actors. And although Meta its headquartered in the United States, the U.S. is also a party to the ICCPR, whereby an affected member State may file a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee.

Transnational corporations (TNCs), including Meta, have an obligation to respect human rights in the countries where they conduct business. This obligation is outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). In a statement released by Meta on March 16, 2021, a corporate human rights policy was launched stating that it “sets out the human rights standards we will strive to respect as defined in international law including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)”^[x]. Meta stated that “(w)e will report our most critical human rights issues, like risks to freedom of expression, to our Board of Directors.”^[xi]

According to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Article 13:
The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises:

(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur;

(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.
Meta’s Corporate Human Rights Policy also states that they commit to implementation of the Global Network Initiative (GNI) Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy. The GNI Principles in turn recognize the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and therefore that “the deprivation of one right adversely affects others”^[xii]. The Principles further state that “freedom of opinion and expression supports an informed citizenry and is vital to ensuring public and private sector accountability. Broad public access to information and the freedom to create and communicate ideas are critical to the advancement of knowledge, economic opportunity and human potential.”^[xiii]This supports the assertion that adverse impacts on the right of freedom to receive and impart information may also adversely affect the right to political participation.

“Not only does Meta control a huge chunk of the internet’s physical infrastructure, it also controls who can see what, when and where. That gives it enormous power, even as the contours of the legal obligations to its users remain unclear.”^[xiv] It is notable that compliance of TNCs with human rights norms is an evolving area of international law, but in the interest of public perception and accountability, they ought to put human rights above profits by paying their fair share to Canadian news agencies. Conversely, Canada ought to put human rights above profits, despite the 2025 tariff crisis. At a time when the world is experiencing a decline in democracy, with Canada having slid down from a liberal democracy to an electoral democracy on the V-Dem Index in recent years^[xv], and women’s rights facing a fierce backlash worldwide, including in Canada, perhaps profit loss is not the most meaningful cost.

Ironically, the Online News Act is said to be “An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada”^[xvi], but it has done just the opposite, and it must be addressed. Can the Liberals, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, take action to foster an effective remedy to the benefit of all Canadians impacted by this ongoing human rights violation?

Respectful engagement is welcomed through the comment section that follows the footnotes.

[i] https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-18 Accessed October 3, 2025.

[ii] Thibeault, Cochran, Major; Federal government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act; November 29, 2023; CBC News; https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-online-news-act-1.7043330

[iii] Article 19, para. 3: The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

[iv] Analysis; 3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?; Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Charterpedia; Canada’s System of Justice; Government of Canada; https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html; website accessed October 7, 2025

[v] United Nations General Assembly; Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; pg. 15/19; Report of the Secretary General; A/77/287; 12 August 2022; footnote 92: See www.theverge.com/2020/3/16/21182726/coronavirus-covid-19-facebook-google-twitter–youtube-joint-effort-misinformation-fraud

[vi] United Nations General Assembly; Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; pg. 17/19; Report of the Secretary General; A/77/287; 12 August 2022

[vii] Page 6 (infographic); (2024) Trust in Media: How Canadians feel about news outlets. Pollara Strategic Insights. https://www.pollara.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Trust-in-Media-July-2024-final.pdf
(Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[viii] Your rights on social media during an election; Sept. 1, 2021; Public Service Alliance of Canada. https://psacunion.ca/your-rights-social-media-during-election (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[ix] Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement; Sherice Gearhart, Bingbing Zhang, and Oluseyi Adegbola; Telematics and Informatics Report, Vol. 16, December 2024, 1000167; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772503024000537 (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[x] https://about.fb.com/news/2021/03/our-commitment-to-human-rights/ (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

[xi] https://about.fb.com/news/2021/03/our-commitment-to-human-rights/ (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

[xii] Page 1; Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy; Global Network Initiative; last updated May 2017; https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GNI-Principles-on-Freedom-of-Expression-and-Privacy.pdf (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

[xiii] Ibid, page 3.

[xiv] Facebook, Meta and the power of tech; Piper, Arthur; International Bar Association; Nov. 24. 2021; https://www.ibanet.org/Facebook-Meta-and-the-power-of-tech (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[xv] Pages 52, 60, 62; Nord, Marina, David Altman, Fabio Angiolillo, Tiago Fernandes, Ana Good God, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2025. Democracy Report 2025: 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped? University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/61/v-dem-dr__2025_lowres_v2.pdf

[xvi] https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-18 Accessed October 3, 2025.
2025-10-07
Canadian sovereignty and the United States’ threat to human rights

United States’ President Donald Trump has been espousing aspirations of territorial acquisition, including of Canada. If the United States succeeds Canada , whether through economic coercion or annexation by use of force, Canada would effectively be withdrawing from all of its own treaty obligations. This poses a grave threat to the human rights of all Canadians.

If Canada loses its status as a sovereign subject under international law the legal effect would be withdrawal from human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This would additionally entail withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR and the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and from the Second Additional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which abolishes the death penalty in member States.

Furthermore, the U.S. has formally submitted intent to withdraw from the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement, both of which indirectly affect human rights, specifically the right to health, and will take effect one year from January 2025.

Regardless of one’s status, if you are living in Canada, you are benefiting from these international human rights and obligations. Perhaps the most important of them is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ECOSOC). This ensures that our government provides such essentials as the right to adequate health care, the right to food, the right to water, the right to adequate housing , the right to safe, healthy, just and favourable work conditions, the right to join trade unions, the right to social security, the right to a reasonable period of paid leave before and after childbirth, the right to child protection against economic and social exploitation, the right to work and earn a living, the right to education, the right to benefit from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which you are the author, and much more.

Canada must remain sovereign!

Although most human rights treaties do not contain termination or withdrawal clauses, the logic is simple – if Canada is succeeded by the United States, Canada ceases to exist as a separate sovereign legal entity under international law, becoming a de facto part of the United States and ipso facto, acceding to the U.S.’s treaty rights and obligations. And because consent is a general principle of international law, the U.S. cannot be legally bound by multilateral treaties of the predecessor State, which it never ratified.

Article 15 of the 2005 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (VCST), which codified customary international law in this matter, provides for the scenario of State succession:

Article 15 – Succession in respect of part of territory

When part of the territory of a State, or when any territory for the international relations of which a State is responsible, not being part of the territory of that State, becomes part of the territory of another State:

(a) treaties of the predecessor State cease to be in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States; and

(b) treaties of the successor State are in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States, unless it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty to that territory would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation.

The real threat of annexation, which implies an illegal situation, inherently evokes dialogue around State security and sovereignty over natural resources – water, oil and gas being among those that the Trump administration has alluded to. Unfortunately President Trump has routinely flouted U.S. constitutional law and will undoubtedly demonstrate the same blatant disregard for compliance with international law, as has already been indicated by unilaterally renaming the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico, and with suggesting “acquiring” Greenland, Canada and Gaza, all despite territorial sovereignty. Whether through economic coercion or by use of force President Trump aims to extend his power and legacy through territorial expansion. However, if Canada consistently refuses to recognize the U.S. as sovereign over our territory then we at least have some hope through international legal procedures. For the respect of our fundamental human rights and freedoms, this is a scenario that hopefully Canadians will never face.

(Originally published on LinkedIn, February 2025)

2025-09-24