CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

How Can Amendments to The Canadian Criminal Code Impact Intimate Partner
Violence?

Susanna Sage Stidworthy
Bachelor of Law Enforcement Studies, Justice Institute of British Columbia

Author Note
This paper was completed as a part of the LAWS 4003: Research Project course,
instructed by Kelsea Perry, and advised by Lukas Bennett.
This paper is 6332 words and is due on March 28, 2025.

1

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

2

Abstract
The purpose of this research study is to examine how Canada addresses the issue of Intimate
Partner Violence (IPV) through the Canadian Criminal Code, as no official code of Intimate
Partner Violence exists in current legislation. To critically examine how Canada codifies this
issue, I propose the question, "How can amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code impact
Intimate Partner Violence?" To further address this question, I have included two additional subquestions: What calls for revision are in place for the Canadian Criminal Code as it applies to
IPV? How have other countries' codifications impacted IPV? To answer these questions, I have
utilized both primary and secondary research methods. Content analysis, being the primary
research method employed in this study, has allowed me to compare and contrast how Canada,
the United Kingdom and Australia all codify Intimate Partner Violence. Secondary research was
used to supplement the primary research and to further provide context to the issue of Intimate
Partner Violence. An analysis of similarities and differences between these three countries
creates the basis on which I begin to answer my research questions. A similarity in how Intimate
Partner Violence is charged across each country is found. Differences between these countries
also exist in that both the United Kingdom and Australia have working definitions of Intimate
Partner Violence and coercive control codes, while Canada seems to be lacking these two
distinct additions.
Keywords: Intimate Partner Violence, Domestic Violence, Domestic Abuse, and
Coercive Control

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

3

Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature review........................................................................................................................... 6
Inadequate Codification of IPV in Canada ...................................................................................6
Effectiveness of Coercive Control .................................................................................................7
Gender Themes.............................................................................................................................7
Historical Theme ..........................................................................................................................9

Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 10
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 14
First Theme ................................................................................................................................ 14
Second Theme............................................................................................................................. 15
Third Theme............................................................................................................................... 16
Sub-Questions............................................................................................................................. 17

Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 19
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 22
References .................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Table 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 31

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

4

Amending The Canadian Criminal Code to Impact Intimate Partner Violence
Background
Within Canada, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is commonly understood as an act which
is against the law, yet IPV is not recognized as an official criminal offence under the Canadian
Criminal Code (CCC). Instead, IPV incidents are charged as criminal acts of assault, harassment,
uttering threats and more (Government of Canada, 2024). By charging IPV cases through the
existing Canadian Criminal Codes, negligence toward the all-encompassing factors surrounding
an incident of IPV can be recognized and argued for. Gill and Aspinall (2020) draw upon similar
conclusions, highlighting the Canadian Criminal Justice System's inability to recognize IPV in its
entirety and not only as a case-specific incident, which is how IPV cases are currently handled.
IPV should instead be understood as an all-encompassing issue, taking into account coercive
control measures such as continual aggressions, isolation tactics, and methods of manipulation.
Coercive control specifically works to recognize patterns of behaviour that occur over time. It is
understood as a non-physical form of abuse experienced in IPV relationships, and it is something
which Canada has yet to adopt into current legislation.
The recognized problem surrounding IPV is the narrow margins of charging IPV under
the Canadian Criminal Code. The purpose of this study is to address the limitations present in the
current CCC by examining other countries' codification of IPV to uncover effective charging
codes for IPV. Given this, my research question will be centred around "How can amendments to
the Canadian Criminal Code impact Intimate Partner Violence?" A sub-question I will consider
is what calls for revision are in place, if any, for the Canadian Criminal Code as it applies to IPV.
Additionally, I will consider how other countries' codifications have impacted IPV.

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

5

I utilize a transformative worldview within my research. Transformative worldviews are,
in part, based on political reform, which serves to address current social issues found in society
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), something which my research aims to accomplish through an
analysis of how the current CCC fails to address IPV entirely in current legislation. Propositions
to reform the current CCC come from my analysis of IPV in our current CCC and the criminal
codes of the United Kingdom and Australia. Examining effective criminal codifications of IPV
in other countries will be essential to answering my overall research question.
The significance of this study exists in the statistics surrounding the prevalence of IPV as
an issue within our Canadian society. While it can be understood that IPV is not a form of
gender-specific violence, in that both men and women experience IPV, Cotter (2021) shares that
women experience harsher forms of IPV and experience IPV more often than their counterparts.
Four out of ten women in Canada are estimated to have suffered from an incident of IPV at least
once throughout their lives (Cotter, 2021). IPV also makes up around 25% of the total number of
calls Canadian police respond to. This 25% represents only 20% of the estimated reported
incidents, while an additional 80% of incidents remain unreported (Stanton, 2024). These
statistics signify the emergent issue of IPV in our current society and call for immediate action
and reform to address the issue. A recognized limitation of this study exists due to the fourteenweek timeframe in which I have to complete this study. Being a fourteen-week course, time and
the amount of literature I can examine play at the forefront of my limitations. Despite these
limitations, this study is important because it works to fill the gaps currently present in the
Canadian Criminal Code.
For the purpose of this paper, IPV will be commonly understood as relating to the term’s
domestic violence and domestic abuse, as all three of these terms make reference to violence

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

6

experienced within an intimate partner relationship (Government of Canada, 2024; Legislative
Government United Kingdom, 2021; Queensland Consolidated Acts, 2012).
Literature review
Upon review of the relevant literature surrounding the topic of IPV within Canada, the
UK, and Australia, themes, gaps in research, and contradicting arguments can be seen. This
portion of the research study examines four of the most prominent themes I have found existing
in the literature. The themes that most commonly present themselves are inadequate codification
of IPV within Canada, the effectiveness of coercive control codes, gender themes, and a
historical context.
Inadequate Codification of IPV in Canada
One notable theme that emerged while analyzing the research literature was the
inadequate codification of IPV can be recognized across all levels of the Canadian criminal
justice system. This is evident for victims of IPV, for police officers in their charging ability of
IPV, and for judges in their definition of IPV. Gill and Aspinall (2020) speak to victims'
experiences of IPV currently falling outside of the current charging scope, leaving victims
subjected to harm without appropriate legislation available for charges. The authors similarly
comment on police officers' inability to address IPV effectively without the recognition and
adoption of coercive control, which takes IPV cases beyond an incident-specific case and
considers the violence experienced by the victim entirely. Similar to the issues faced by victims
and police officers through the inadequate codification of IPV, authors Browns et al. (2024)
comment on judges' inability to effectively charge all aspects of IPV through current legislation.
The author specifically draws on judges' recognition of psychological and emotional factors
associated with IPV without an existing definition which encompasses these aspects (p.85). The

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

7

theme explored here is how ineffective codification of IPV exists throughout every level of the
Criminal Justice System, being apparent to victims, police, and judges alike.
Effectiveness of Coercive Control
A contradicting theme present in the articles of review surrounds the effectiveness of
adopting coercive control as a legal code. While authors Gill and Aspinall (2020), Evan Stark
(2016) and Browns et al. (2024) all argue for the adoption of coercive control as an effective
solution to filling the gap present in the CCC, Walklate et al. (2018) suggest that including
coercive control in criminal legislation may not be the answer. Walklate et al. (2018) conclude
that the issue of implementing coercive control as a criminal offence exists due to the inability of
the legal system itself to recognize women's stories as they relate to IPV in its entirety. The
traditional criminal justice system is then called into question as the author stipulates that
through traditional court rulings of guilty or not guilty, victims' voices are still not being heard
(p.127). The contradicting success and failure of coercive control allows me as a researcher to
evaluate potential shortcomings and successes of the implementation of coercive control as a
code. Overall, the author Walklate et al. (2018) does well to highlight a prominent issue with
coercive control, being its inability to change women's experiences with the criminal justice
system. This highlights faults existing in the criminal justice system, faults which should be
further examined and addressed so victims of IPV do not suffer as a result.
Gender Themes
A gender theme is present in the articles of review. While gender-neutral language is
used for charges surrounding IPV (Grant, 2018), the common theme seen throughout these
articles is that women suffer at the hands of male intimate partners in most cases. I rely on the
authors Gill and Aspinall (2020) while drawing reference to women being most at risk of IPV

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

8

(para. 1.2) and rely on Grant (2018) to demonstrate the statistical significance of how many
intimate partner violence cases are made up of male perpetrators and female victims. Grant
(2018) stipulates that around 85 percent of cases of IPV involve male aggressors and female
victims. Similarly, with significant numbers in intimate partner sexual assault cases, just under
100 percent of these cases involve male aggressors and female victims (p.161). Cotter (2021)
adds to this discussion by breaking down different forms of IPV and discussing the statistical
differences apparent between males and females in each form. Psychological abuse, named as
one of the most recognized forms of IPV, was apparent in around 43% of females and 35% of
males. Physical abuse, another attribute of IPV, was evident for 23% of females compared to
17% of males. Sexual violence was another factor of IPV discussed, having been experienced by
12% of females as opposed to 2% of males (p.5). These statistics provide a snapshot of selfreported data collected by the Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces in 2018 (Cotter,
2021). The gendered theme present in these articles demonstrates female vulnerability to IPV
existing at a significantly higher rate than their counterpart males within Canada.
To cast the scope outward and to consider if these gender themes are consistent across the
UK and Australia, I have relied on a Crime Survey data source to reflect gender themes apparent
in England and Wales, and I have additionally relied on the national Personal Safety Survey to
reflect gender themes across Australia. Both data sources reflect similar findings to that of
Canada, where females are recognized to suffer from IPV at a disproportionally higher rate than
their counterparts. In England and Wales, the Crime Survey approximates that 7 in every 100
females experience IPV, while only 3 in every 100 males experience IPV. The data reported
further showcases that females experience higher rates of domestic abuse (both sexual and nonsexual), partner abuse (both sexual and non-sexual), domestic sexual assault and stalking, and

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

9

more (Office for National Statistics, 2021). In Australia, the Personal Safety Survey estimates
that 1 out of 4 females experience IPV while 1 out of 14 males experience IPV (Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024). Laskey et al. (2019) provide a unique insight into gender
themes as they relate to IPV. The author notes that because women are statistically seen to suffer
IPV at higher rates than males, a significant portion of literature surrounding females and IPV
exist, while male or same-sex partner literature and research studies surrounding IPV are
substantially less. The author proposes that male victimization may be less prominent in society
due to different coping mechanisms used by males and potentially due to the fact that males may
not readily seek help from support services (p.2).
Historical Theme
A historical context is identified as a fourth theme in the review of the chosen articles.
The historical context of the law surrounding IPV is explored in Walklate et al.'s (2018) article,
whereby the author discusses the UK's twenty-year movement toward creating legislation for
victims of IPV. Through this article, a historical perspective on how UK legislation was created
can be explored. This provides relevant context to how and why the UK chose to adopt coercive
control into formal legislation.
A historical lens can also be adopted in a review of the Canadian Criminal Justice
responses to IPV. Traditionally, police responses to cases of IPV took on a hands-off approach,
meaning police at times treated IPV cases as low priority. Some are even said to have drawn
straws to see who would attend IPV cases on that particular shift, or police would engage in what
was referred to as the stitch rule, whereby police would only charge offenders if victims required
above a certain number of stitches. To speak plainly to this, police officers would engage in
several tactics to justify their failings to adequality address IPV. Police and criminal justice

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

10

responses to IPV have seen changes over the last 30 years, and in these changes, movement from
this hands-off response to a more arrest-oriented response is recognized (Hendricks, et al. 2010).
The introduction of no-drop policies surrounding the charging and prosecution of IPV came into
existence in 1983 (Department of Justice Canada, 2022). These policies worked to better protect
victims of IPV by ensuring that police lay charges when there are reasonable grounds to believe
an offence has occurred (Department of Justice Canada, 2021). Aside from the no-drop/ proarrest policies introduced to Canada, additional legislation surrounding IPV is seen to have come
into existence over the years. Grant (2018) examines the effects of section 718.2(a)(ii) since its
creation in 1996. This code allowed for spousal/common-law partnerships existing between an
aggressor and a victim to be considered an aggregating factor in prosecution. Simply put, when
an offence, such as a sexual assault, occurs between two people in a relationship, this code
allows for an offender to receive a harsher sentence because they are in a relationship. Pro-arrest/
no-drop policies and codes, such as section 718.2(a)(ii), are a few of the adopted policies and
legislative changes to have taken place over the last 30 years that help address the issues of IPV
within Canada.
Adopting a historical perspective of both the UK and Canada provides relevant context to
the issue of IPV. It allows me as the researcher to recognize relevant and necessary changes in
legislation as it occurred in history and provides key insights into how and why current
legislation surrounding IPV existence.
Methodology
Secondary data is used within this study to provide relevant and credible context to my
primary research. I rely on the use of key terms such as Intimate Partner Violence, Canada,
Coercive Control, and Canadian Criminal Code while conducting my literature searches. I made

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

11

use of the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC) library website, EBSCO, and Google
Scholar while conducting my initial searches. From the JIBC library website, I used the
databases eBook Collection, Criminal Justice Abstracts Academic Search Complete, APA
PsychInfo, and ProQuest. From Google Scholar, I utilized the databases The Government of
Canada and The Government of British Columbia. Upon conducting my initial search through
the JIBC library website, results that surfaced while using the keywords' Intimate Partner
Violence' were in the thousands. To reduce the large number of results and narrow down the
literature to be more specific, I utilized inclusion, exclusion, and revision tactics to find the
literature best suited to my study. I limited search results by adding inclusion criteria of 'Full
Text,' 'Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals,' and resources published between 2010 and 2025. I
additionally included search terms to further refine and expand the results. These search terms
were 'Canada,' 'Canadian Criminal Code,' 'Policing,' and other common terms related to IPV,
such as 'domestic violence or partner abuse.' Please refer to Table A1 in the Appendix for a
visual representation of this process.
Upon conducting additional searches for literature on my topic, I utilized Google Scholar
and engaged in a search process similar to that used for the JIBC EBSCO website platform.
Please refer to Table A2 in the Appendix for a visual representation of my Google Scholar search
process.
Secondary data was also used to help me navigate how the countries Canada, the UK, and
Australia codify IPV. I utilized research articles, Google searches, and government websites to
develop an understanding of how each country codifies IPV. Google was the primary platform I
relied on while conducting my research. While focusing on secondary research associated with
how IPV is charged within Canada, I utilized a Google search for 'How IPV is charged within

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

12

Canada.' This elicited numerous results, and after reviewing some of the Google links, an article
belonging to the data website, Journal of Community Safety & Well Being, became the resource
I utilized to help guide my primary research codification of IPV charges within Canada. While
focusing on secondary research associated with how IPV is charged within the UK, I conducted a
Google search 'How to charge IPV in the UK.' This search, much like the one I conducted for
Canada, elicited numerous results. Again, I reviewed several Google links before finding the
CPS government website, which was the resource I used to guide my primary research on IPV
charges in the UK. In addition to these searches, I conducted a Google search on 'all of the
Domestic Violence charges in Australia.' This search produced several results, and after
reviewing a few of the Google links, I found the Justice Family Lawyers website, which helped
direct my primary research on Australian codifications of IPV.
Content analysis was the primary research method I relied on while conducting my
research. Content analysis, in its essence, works to identify specific words, patterns, and themes
within a given text (Columbia University, 2024) and, therefore, would be the most appropriate
research method to employ while I conducted an analysis into how criminal codes of Canada,
The UK, and Australia codify the issue of IPV. Within the initial phase of my coding, I aimed to
include any and all content related to IPV, which would ensure that I had all the relevant and
necessary data available to code the issue of IPV in its entirety. This process initially included a
keyword search on all three countries' criminal codes using the key term 'Intimate Partner
Violence.' This keyword search elicited few responses regarding chargers associated with IPV.
This is to be expected as no criminal codes belonging to either of these three countries codify the
issue of IPV (Crown Prosecution Service, 2022; Gill and Aspinall, 2020; McConnell &
Saldumbide, 2024). Secondary research was then used to help guide me in how each country

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

13

codified IPV through existing charges in their respective criminal codes. Secondary research,
therefore, became the tool I relied on while creating my initial codes. After compiling all
relevant charges associated with IPV in each country into three separate charts, I was able to
begin the focused coding portion of my primary research. This portion included a compare and
contrast element to the existing codes of each country. This helped me identify patterns of
similarities that existed across each country's criminal codes, as well as the differences that
existed in each country. Please refer to Table 3 in the Appendix for a visual representation of my
focused coding.
My research study utilized a transformative worldview. Transformative worldviews are,
in part, based on political reform, which serves to address current social issues found in society
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), something which my research aims to accomplish through an
analysis of how the current CCC fails to address IPV entirely in current legislation. Propositions
of reform to the current CCC come from my analysis of IPV in our current CCC and the criminal
codes of the United Kingdom and Australia. Examining effective criminal codifications of IPV
in other countries will become the base which I use to answer my overall research question.
Ethical concerns were considered within this study. Biases presented through my primary
research are identified as the main ethical concern. These biases derive mainly from my selection
process during the two phases of coding, where I, as the researcher, select the codes I identify as
being most significant. This selection process is arguably where I impart my biases on the
research. While other ethical concerns regarding informed consent, confidentiality, and voluntary
participation were all considered, they are not recognized as specific ethical concerns as all the
research provided was derived from publicly available information.

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

14

Results
My research question is centred around ‘How can amendments to the Canadian Criminal
Code Impact Intimate Partner violence”? Through an analysis of how three countries, Canada,
the UK, and Australia, codify the issue of IPV, I can begin to answer this question. The intention
behind my primary and secondary research falls to exploring how countries other than Canada
codify the issue of IPV with the intention of discovering if other provisions or codes exist that
may help address the all-encompassing and overwhelming issue of IPV within Canada.
First Theme
The first and most prominent theme which presented itself through both my primary and
secondary research was that neither of the country explored had an existing charge of IPV. All
countries relied on elements belonging to IPV, such as assault, sexual assault, and threatening to
distribute intimate images, while charging for the issue. Within the Canadian Criminal Code, the
charge for Assault exists in section 266 of the CCC, the charge for Sexual Assault exists in
section 271 of the CCC, and the charge for Publication of an intimate image without consent
exists in section 162.1 of the CCC (Browns et al., 2024; Government of Canada, 1985). Within
the UK, the code Batter/Common Assault exists in section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act, Sexual
Assault exists in section 3 of the Sexual Offence Act, and an Offence of sharing or threatening to
share intimate photographs or films exists in section 188 of the Online Safety Act (Crown
Prosecution Service, 2022; Legislation Government United Kingdom, 2023). Within Australia,
the charge for Common Assault exists in section 61 of the Crimes Act, the charge for Sexual
Assault exists in section 61I of the Crimes Act, and the charge to Threaten to record or distribute
intimate images exists in section 91R of the Crimes Act (New South Wales Legislation, 2025).
Although many other charges within these respective countries exist that deal with the issue of

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

15

IPV, these three charges provide an example of a few of the charges consistent within each
country. Please refer to the Appendix Table A3 for a visual representation of this theme, a
description of this theme and the respective countries and their codes. To supplement these
findings, I look to the authors Gill and Aspinall (2020), Crown Prosecution Service (2022) and
McConnell and Saldumbide (2024), who additionally reinforce this theme by recognizing that
IPV is charged through various criminal codes and not a IPV code. This theme applies to my
research question, as it helps to demonstrate how each country charges for the issue of IPV.
From these findings, through both my primary and secondary research, I can conclude that all
three of the research countries charge for IPV in similar ways. While this finding demonstrates
similarities in the charging process between each country, the subsequent themes demonstrate
differences between these countries.
Second Theme
A secondary theme which presented itself through both my primary and secondary data
was that the UK and Australia had a working definition of IPV commonly understood through
‘domestic violence’ and ‘domestic abuse,’ something which the Canadian Criminal Code seems
to lack (Browns et al., 2024). Within the UK, the country has adopted the definition of domestic
abuse to mean “Behaviour of a person (“A”) towards another person (“B”) is domestic abuse if –
(a) A and B are each aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other (b) the
behaviour is abusive.” (Legislation Government United Kingdom, 2021, p.1). The act goes on to
outline what abusive behaviour is, what economic abuse is, and so forth (Legislation
Government United Kingdom, 2021). Within Australia, the country has adopted the definition of
domestic violence to mean:

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

16

… behaviour, or a pattern of behaviour, by a person (the first person) towards another
person (the second person) with whom the first person is in a relevant relationship that –
(a) is physically or sexually abusive; or (b) is emotionally or psychologically abusive, or
(c) is economically abusive; or (d) is threatening; or € is coercive; or (f) in any other way
controls or dominates the second person and causes the second person to fear for the
second person’s safety or wellbeing or that of someone else. (Queensland Consolidated
Acts, 2012, p.1)
Please refer to the Appendix, Table A3, for a visual representation of this theme, a description of
this theme and the respective countries and their definitions. As aforementioned in the
background portion of this paper, the definition of IPV is recognized through the UK’s term
‘Domestic Abuse’ and through Australia’s term ‘Domestic Violence’ because all these terms
make reference to the overriding definition of IPV being, that all three of these terms make
reference to violence experienced within an intimate partner relationship (Government of
Canada, 2024; Legislative Government United Kingdom, 2021; Queensland Consolidated Acts,
2012). This theme helps me answer my overall research question as it identifies an element that
exists in both the UK and Australia but not in Canada. This element being, a working definition
and understanding of the issue of IPV.
Third Theme
The third theme, which presented itself through my primary and secondary data, was that
coercive control existed in both the UK’s Criminal Code and Australia’s Criminal Code as
related offences to IPV. Coercive control, however, is not currently recognized as a formal
charging code within the Canadian Criminal Code (Gill & Aspinall, 2020). Within the UK,
coercive is recognized in section 76 of the Serious Crimes Act (Legislation Government United

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

17

Kingdom, 2015). Within Australia, coercive control is recognized through the Crimes
Legislation Amendment Coercive Control Act (New South Wales, 2022). Please refer to the
Appendix, Table A3, for a visual representation of this theme, a description of this theme and the
respective countries and their coercive control codes. To supplement this finding, I rely on the
work of Browns et al., 2024, who further recognizes the existence of coercive control in the UK,
Australia and several other countries while recognizing that Canada still has yet to adopt this
charging code. This theme further adds to the base on which I answer my research question as it
provides relevant insight into additional legislation that the UK and Australia have, which
Canada has yet to adopt.
Sub-Questions
One of the sub-questions I posed within the introduction looked at what calls for revision
are in place, if any, for the Canadian Criminal Code as it applies to IPV. This question invites a
current understanding of the issue of IPV as it exists within Canadian legislation to date. While
referenced in the previous paragraph, we can see that, although not currently apparent within the
Canadian Criminal Code, coercive control legislation is under revision in the Canadian
Parliament (Browns et al., 2024). Bill C-332 is an act that proposes amendments to the current
Criminal Code to include coercive control in IPV relationships in legislation. Bill C-332 has
successfully made its way through the House of Commons and is presently under consideration
in committee at the Senate level (Parliament of Canada, 2021). This sub-question is incredibly
important to answering my overall research question because it allows me, as the researcher, to
identify how Canada is working to address the issue of IPV through legislative changes. Bill C332 is a perfect example of some of the benefits a country can have when they look outward and
draw inspiration from how other countries are trying to address the issue of IPV. This is one of

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

18

the reasons why I have chosen to engage this research question and conduct an analysis of
different countries.
An additional sub-question posed in the introduction asks how other countries'
codifications have impacted IPV? This was an important question to ask as it works to create an
understanding of how specific codes and legislation are working within a country to address the
issue of IPV. I rely on the work of Walklate et al. (2018) while exploring this sub-question.
Although briefly touched on within the literature review portion of this paper, I hope to bring
forward the issues currently present with the application of coercive control as a charge within
the UK. The intention behind this is to highlight current application issues with the coercive
control code in hopes that by identifying application issues, appropriate amendments can be
identified. Further to this point, with the potential of coercive control codes coming into
legislation through Bill C-332 within Canada, Walklate et al.'s (2018) paper may act as a crucial
guide while considering operational issues associated with charging coercive control. Walklate et
al. (2018) highlight an area of consideration being that to enforce a charge of coercive control,
victims must demonstrate a willingness and ability to engage with police, something that may be
challenging for all women. Barriers involved in reporting incidents of IPV still exist and are
namely due to discrimination fears, fears surrounding lack of support, fears that reporting an
incident may inspire more violence and fear of gender discrimination. Another area of concern
highlighted by Walklate et al. (2018) surrounds the implementation of this code by police
officers. The concern lies in officers' ability to recognize coercive control when responding to a
single incident. The purpose of coercive control is to highlight abusive tendencies over the
course of a relationship, something which may be challenging to do while officers respond to a
single incident. Several other potential consequences are discussed in Walklate et al.'s (2018)

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

19

paper, but I have identified these two above as some of the most prominent. This research helps
answer my overall research question in that it discusses areas for consideration in implementing
coercive control into legislation. A review of these consequences would prove beneficial to
Canada, which is currently engaging in the implementation of coercive control codes.
Discussion
The discussion portion of this research paper looks to examine the strengths and
weakness present in the evidence, it additionally highlights limitations found in the research
process.
A strength to this paper includes the use of primary research as one of the main
methodologies employed. Primary research allowed me to conduct direct research pertaining to
my overall question. Such was the case in this study, where I utilized content analysis, a primary
research method, to examine criminal codes of different countries. This process was specific and
focused on answering my overall research question.
Strengths in the use of secondary research were additionally recognized in this paper
through the ability of secondary research to provide relevant context to the issue of IPV in the
literature review portion. Secondary research additionally helped guide my primary research,
specifically on how IPV is charged in each respective country. This brings me to a weakness
apparent in my research data collection being, the need to rely on secondary data to understand
how IPV is codified in each country. As there is no official code for IPV, I had to rely on
secondary research to try to piece together relevant codes for charging IPV in each country. Not
having one specific code capturing the issue of IPV is discussed as an additional weakness in
existence in all the respective countries, as the issue of IPV is then hard to capture in its entirety.

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

20

A strength of this paper is recognized in the credible and reliable sources I was able to
attain while conducting my research. The base from which most of my results and findings were
derived came from either criminal codes, government websites, or scholarly peer-reviewed
articles. The criminal codes used were the Canadian Criminal Code, the Australian New South
Wales Criminal Act and Queensland Consolidated Act, the United Kingdom’s Serious Crimes
Act, the Domestic Abuse Act, and the Sexual Offences Act. Credible government websites
include the Government of Canada, Parliament of Canada and the Department of Justice Canada
websites. Lastly, credible scholarly articles were used, namely articles published by Sage
Publications, Criminology & Criminal Justice data websites, and more.
A weakness found within this paper exists in the limitation surrounding the time frame in
which I had to complete this research paper. Due to the 14-week period in which I had to
complete this paper, I was only able to analyze the criminal codes of Canada, the UK and
Australia. This restricted the variability of data found as differences in how each country codifies
IPV could only be measured across three countries. An analysis of more countries could have
benefitted the research by providing more or different data surrounding the codification of IPV.
An additional weakness in the evidence is found in the countries selected to be a part of
this research study, namely Canada and Australia, whose legal systems seemingly have a deeply
rooted connection to the English legal system. The University of Melbourne (2025) shares that
although the Australian legal system broke away from the English system in 1788, English
influence is still apparent in Australia. A similar connection between Canadian legal systems and
English Common law can be argued for, seeing as the English common law is, in part, what the
Canadian Criminal legal system is built on (Department of Justice Canada, 2015). The inclusion
of countries whose legal systems did not derive from England or countries that do not follow

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

21

Common Law may have offered a unique analysis of how those countries codify their issues,
specifically in how they codify or address the issue of IPV.
Recommendations
Recommendations to consider mainly derive from the results section of this paper. To
begin, I recommend that Canada implement both a definition of IPV and a coercive control code
to address the current failings of the justice system. (Browns et al., 2024) shares the possible
benefits of adopting a working definition of IPV, namely its ability to enhance victim
management, regulate responses to IPV and allow for better risk management strategies. In
addition to these benefits, the adoption of an IPV definition allows for judges, police, and victims
alike to adopt a unified understanding of the issue and all the elements pertaining to IPV. I
additionally recognize that Canada is currently in the process of adopting coercive control into
legislation through Bill C-332. To this, I recommend that policymakers adopt a critical review of
the successes and failures of the implementation of coercive control in the UK. I argue that
Walklate et al. (2018) provide key insights into some of these successes and failures, and I urge
policymakers to consider these carefully, as it would be remiss of us as a country to implement
similar legislation just to face the same issues apparent in the UK.
I further recommend that researchers continue to evaluate other countries' criminal codes
in hopes of inspiring more or better ways of codifying the issue of IPV. The issue of IPV itself is
a prominent issue within Canada and in other countries all across the world, and solutions to this
prevalent issue may come from a united global effort to address IPV.
Coercive control codes are one of the proposed responses to the current failings of the
Canadian Criminal Justice System. The recognized need to implement coercive control derives
from the current justice system's inability to recognize every element of IPV, being actions that

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

22

work to inspire fear and terrorize or manipulate a partner (Gill & Aspinall, 2020). This begs the
question of whether introducing coercive control codes will, in fact, fill the gap present in current
criminal justice responses to IPV. While in definition, it should, being that the gap currently
present surrounds non-existing charges that capture every element of IPV, and coercive control,
being those elements should fill this gap.
I question then if the only gap present in the current Canadian Criminal Justice System is
coercive control, seeing as IPV is still a prominent issue in both the UK and Australia who, are
recognized as having coercive control codes. I question what additional failures currently exist in
these countries' criminal justice response to IPV. These failures may exist outside of codification
and may be apparent in the criminal justice system itself. These failings may exist in the
traditional court proceedings, which typically neglect the victim's involvement, or in failings that
may exist in current police responses to IPV, I do not know. Further research is needed to
conduct an analysis of these areas in the criminal justice system. Overall, I recognize that there is
probably no one good solution to the issue of IPV, but instead, many small solutions which may,
over time, work to address the overall issue, which is IPV.
Conclusion
Through this research study, I aimed to answer the research question, "How can
amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code Impact Intimate Partner Violence?" In addition to
this research question, I posed two sub-questions, namely, what calls for revision are in place for
the Canadian Criminal Code as it applies to IPV? And how have other countries' codifications
impacted IPV? By exploring three different countries' criminal codes and responses to IPV, I
have been able to answer this question. Within this paper, I have demonstrated first how Canada
responds to the issue of IPV through the CCC and second how other countries have worked to do

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

23

the same. It was through this analysis that I was able to recognize the similarities and differences
that are apparent across each county. From this analysis, I have been able to find that each of the
countries explored addresses the issue of IPV in a similar way, meaning they charge for elements
of the offence rather than for the offence itself. I have additionally found that both the UK and
Australia have working definitions of IPV, and coercive control codes embedded in their
criminal legislation, something which Canada has yet to implement. Further, in addressing my
overall research question, I posed two sub-questions. In exploring these sub-questions, I found
that Canada is currently in the process of adopting a coercive control code into legislation
through Bill C-332 and found that within the UK implementation concerns surrounding their
coercive control codes exist. Adopting a critical review of the implementation concerns
surrounding coercive control is recommended for policymakers currently in the process of
pushing through Bill C-332. It is recommended that public officials and policymakers use the
identified concerns as a road map to how Canada can better implement coercive control into
legislation.
This paper utilized both primary and secondary research methods. This allowed for
specific and relative data pertaining to my research question to be produced, and wherever
primary research fell short, secondary research was used to provide relevant context to the issue
of IPV and was used to help guide my primary research. As aforementioned, one of the identified
limitations of this study was the limited time frame in which I had to complete this research
study. This undoubtedly contributed to the limited number of sources I was able to analyze while
conducting my research.
To conclude this paper, I recognize that there is probably no one good solution to
resolving the issue of IPV, but a hope in conducting this paper and other like it, is that proposed

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

24

solutions and recommendations made can, over time, work to address the overall issue which is
IPV.

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

25

References
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). Intimate partner violence. Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexualviolence/types-of-violence/intimate-partner-violence
Browns, A. J., Giesbrecht, C. J., & Bruer, K. C. (2024). How judges in Canadian criminal courts
define intimate partner violence. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being.
https://www.journalcswb.ca/index.php/cswb/article/view/387/1088
Columbia University. (2024) Content analysis. Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis.
Cotter, A. (2021). Intimate partner violence in Canada, 2018: An overview. Canadian Centre for
Justice Statistics,1, 3-23. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/intimate-partnerviolence-canada-2018-overview/docview/2528511177/se-2
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design. Sage Publications.
https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/1/creswell.pdf
Crown Prosecution Service (2022). Domestic abuse. Crown Prosecution Service, Government of
the United Kingdom. www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/domestic-abuse.
Department of Justice Canada. (2015). Canada’s system of justice.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/img/courten.pdf
Department of Justice Canada. (2021). Final report of the ad hoc federal-provincial-territorial
working group reviewing spousal abuse policies and legislation.
https://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/pol/p2.html
Department of Justice Canada. (2022). Strategic issues series the challenge of biotechnology &
public policy. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rr01_5/p0.html

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

26

Gill, C., & Aspinall, M. (2020). Understanding coercive control in the context of intimate
partner violence in Canada: How to address the issue through the criminal justice
system? Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudspersonvictims-crime/publications/research-recherche/ucc-ccc.html#TOC-2
Government of Canada. (1985). Criminal Code. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/
Government of Canada. (2024). Family Violence Laws. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/fvvf/laws-lois.html
Government of Canada. (2025). Fact sheet: Intimate partner violence.
www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-violence/intimate-partnerviolence.html.
Grant, I. (2018). The role of section 718.2(a)(ii) in sentencing for male intimate partner violence
against women. The Canadian Bar Review.
https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/4453/4424
Hendricks, J. E., & McKean, J. B., & Hendricks, C. G. (2010) Crisis intervention: Contemporary
issues for on-site interveners (4th ed.). Charles C Thomas Publisher.
file:///Users/sagestidworthy/Downloads/JamesEHendricks_2010_Chapter6INTIMATEP
ARTN_CrisisInterventionCon.pdf
Laskey, P., & Bates, E. A., & Taylor, J. C. (2019) A systematic literature review of intimate
partner violence victimisation: An inclusive review across gender and sexuality.
Aggression and Violent Behaviour 47, p.1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.02.014
Legislation Government United Kingdom. (2015). Serious Crime Act 2015.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76/2023-04-05

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

27

Legislation Government United Kingdom. (2021). Domestic Abuse Act 2021.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/section/1?view=plain
Legislation Government United Kingdom (2023). Sexual Offences Act 2003.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/notes/division/5/1/3.
McConnell & Saldumbide Criminal Lawyers. (2024). Common charges in domestic violence:
Legal insights. https://mandslawyers.com.au/blog/common-charges-in-domesticviolence/
New South Wales Legislation. (2025). Crimes Act 1900 No 40. New South Wales Government.
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1900-040
New South Wales. (2022) Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 No 65.
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/act-2022-65
Office for National Statistics. (2024). Domestic abuse victim characteristics, England and
Wales.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domest
icabusevictimcharacteristicsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2024
Parliament of Canada. (2021). C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercive control of
intimate partner). https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-332
Queensland Consolidated Acts. (2012). Domestic and family violence protection act 2012 - sect
8 meaning of domestic violence.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/dafvpa2012379/s8.html#domestic_vi
olence
Stanton, K. (2024). The British Columbia legal system’s treatment of intimate partner violence
and sexual violence. Government of British Columbia.

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

28

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justicesystem/justice-reform-initiatives/systemicreview/dr_kim_stantons_november_2024_issues_paper.pdf
Stark, E. (2016). Policing Partner Abuse and the New Crime of Coercive Control in the United
Kingdom, 345-353. Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly.
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=i3h&AN=120
244414&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s5672447
The University of Melbourne. (2025). Legal History of Australia and the United Kingdom.
https://unimelb.libguides.com/legalhistoryresearch
Walklate, S., Fitz-Gibbon, K., & McCulloch, J. (2018). Is more law the answer? Seeking justice
for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories.
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 115–131.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1748895817728561

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Appendix
Table A1
Library Search Process
Website
Platform

JIBC
(Ebsco)
JIBC
(Ebsco)

Search
results
Initial Search
Intimate Partner
161,206
Violence
Revised Searches
Intimate Partner
89,396
Violence
Intimate Partner
79,157
Violence

JIBC
(Ebsco)

Intimate Partner
Violence

24,531

JIBC
(Ebsco)

Intimate Partner
Violence AND
Canada
Intimate Partner
Violence AND
Canada AND
Canadian
Criminal Code
Intimate partner
violence AND
Canada AND
Policing
Intimate partner
violence or
domestic
violence or
partner violence
AND Canada
AND Policing

2,829

JIBC
(Ebsco)

JIBC
(Ebsco)

JIBC
(Ebsco)

JIBC
(Ebsco)

Search Term(s)

Reasons for Revision
Added limitations to the search
to include only Full Text.
Added limitations to the search
to include Scholarly. (Peer
Reviewed) Journals
Added limitations to the search
to include a publication date
ranging from 2015 to 2025
Included the term ‘Canada’

4

Included the term ‘Canadian
Criminal Code’

22

Included the term ‘Policing’
and excluded ‘Canadian
Criminal Code’

88

Expanded ‘intimate partner
violence’ to ‘Intimate partner
violence or domestic violence
or partner violence”

29

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Table A2
Google Scholar Search Process
Website
Platform
Google
Scholar
Google
Scholar
Google
Scholar
Google
Scholar
Google
Scholar

Search Term(s)

Search
results
Initial Search
Intimate Partner
371,000
Violence Canada
Revised Searches
Intimate Partner
18,700
Violence Canada
Intimate Partner
Violence Canada
Coercive Control
Intimate Partner
Violence Canada
British Columbia
Intimate Partner
Violence Canada
Policing

22,600

14,300

24,700

Reasons for Revision
Added limitations to the search
to include a publication date
ranging from 2015 to 2025
Added search term ‘Coercive
Control’
Added search term ‘British
Columbia’ and removed
‘Coercive Control’
Added search term ‘policing’
and removed ‘British
Columbia’

30

CRIMINAL CODES & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

31

Table A3
Themes
Themes
Similar charging elements
of IPV

Definitions of IPV or
related terms

Description
All countries relied on
charging for elements of
IPV rather than having an
existing charge of IPV

Canada has no existing
definition of IPV, while the
UK and Australia do.

Countries
Canada
Assault: Section 266 CCC
Sexual Assault: Section 271 CCC
Publication of an intimate image
without consent: Section 162.1 CCC
The UK
Battery/ Common Assault: Section 39
Criminal Justice Act
Sexual Assault: Section 3 Sexual
Offences Act
An offence sharing or threatening to
share intimate photographs or films:
Section 188 Online Safety Act 2023
Australia
Common Assault: Section 61 Crimes
Act
Sexual Assault: Section 61I Crimes
Act
Threaten to record or distribute
intimate images: Section 91R Crimes
Act
Canada: N/A
The UK: Domestic Abuse Act 2021
Australia: Domestic and Family
Violence Protection Act 2012

Coercive control

Canada has no existing
coercive control codes,
while the UK and Australia
do.

Canada: N/A
The UK: Section 76 Serious Crimes
act 2015
Australia: Crimes legislation
Amendment Coercive Control Act
2022