Witnesses gave the Committee a vivid picture of the dynamics of abuse some sponsored spouses endure, drawn from personal experience and from front-line work with abused women or newcomers to Canada. They underscored that domestic violence knows no bounds: “it's a phenomenon that cuts across race, ethnicity, economic and social class, ability, and age.”[34] As such, witnesses informed the Committee that, in some respects, sponsored spouses experience the issues and challenges of domestic abuse just as other women in Canada. Further, many of the dynamics of an abusive relationship are the same for sponsored spouses, such as partner control over her freedom of movement and access to money and partner-imposed isolation. And just as women in general find it difficult to leave an abusive relationship for lack of confidence, concern over children, or lack of financial independence, these barriers inhibit sponsored spouses as well.

However, witnesses also shared the view that sponsored spouses face unique challenges, mostly related to their immigration status and/or cultural background. This section of the report goes into further detail on the unique factors contributing to sponsored spouses’ vulnerability to abuse and their difficulty leaving an abusive relationship. Specifically, it describes vulnerability to abuse derived from being new to and unfamiliar with Canada, cultural background, type of marriage formality, and immigration status. The descriptions provided here offer important context for the witnesses’ recommendations in the following chapter, and for the course of action recommended by the Committee which concludes the report.

A. Vulnerability Derived from Being New to Canada and Dependent on the Sponsor

The Committee heard from witnesses that sponsored spouses may be vulnerable to abuse because they are new to Canada and often dependent on their sponsor. Being new to Canada, sponsored spouses may be unfamiliar with their rights and protection under the law, or lack knowledge of services available to assist them. Their recent arrival in Canada also means that they are likely to be isolated and without a social network or connection to social services. “It has been our experience,” said Deepa Mattoo of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, “that women trapped in such relationships usually have no one to turn for support other than the abuser and the families themselves.”[35] Swarandeep Virk, of DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society, explained that sponsored spouses often do not know about settlement services and may only be referred once the police and victim services have intervened in a situation.[36]

The isolation of some sponsored spouses may be severe, according to Melpa Kamateros of Shield of Athena Family Services, to the point where the spouse does not take transit and lacks access to the Internet.[37] Katie Rosenberger, of DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society, explained that isolation can lead to the most severe cases of violence. She described isolation as follows:

This type of isolation is often done with the consent and participation of the spouse and his family, including the mother and sisters-in-law. Isolation may include being accompanied to all appointments, such as the doctor, grocery store, and even educational programming. These women will not be allowed to work nor will they have access to a phone. If they are working, it’s often in the family business or within constant view of another family member.[38]

Being new to Canada may create a dependency on the sponsor. As Kripa Sekhar, of the South Asian Women's Centre noted, often in the relationship there is an “inequality of status based on length of stay in the country, so the spouse who has lived in Canada longer has a better knowledge and support of the local community.”[39] However, this dependency is exacerbated by two specific forms of dependency identified by numerous witnesses: financial and linguistic.

Several witnesses informed the Committee that sponsored spouses often come to Canada without financial resources. Even those who do have money, through a dower or dowry for example, may be prevented from accessing such resources by the sponsoring family.[40] Some women report financial abuse by their sponsor, when for instance, the sponsor takes on debts and lines of credit in her name or puts all of his property in his parents’ names, thereby excluding the sponsored spouse.[41]

Further, sponsored spouses, like other immigrants, often face barriers in integrating into the Canadian labour market, limiting their ability to earn money for themselves. Marie-Josée Duplessis, of the Collectif des femmes immigrantes du Québec, listed as barriers: lack of access to subsidized day care, limited access to job placement or training programs, employers’ requiring Canadian experience, and difficulties with education and credential recognition.[42] Khadija Darid, of Espace féminin arabe, emphasized discrimination as a barrier facing some immigrant women as they try to enter the Canadian workforce.[43] Shirin Mandani, of Reh'ma Community Services, shared that language barriers posed a barrier for her organization’s clients, who found that English as a second language and Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada classes were not sufficient for employment.[44] She also suggested that sometimes the skills newcomer women bring may not be relevant to Canadian labour market demands.

Many witnesses highlighted that sponsored spouses’ lack of awareness and isolation are compounded when they speak neither English nor French.[45] As Makai Aref, of the Afghan Women’s Centre of Montreal, explained, women who cannot speak English or French “cannot communicate their situations to social workers, lawyers and the police…and are thus barred from those avenues of aid.”[46]The language barrier also increases sponsored spouses’ dependency on their sponsors.[47]

B. Vulnerability Derived from Cultural Background

Many witnesses mentioned cultural barriers that may impede women – including sponsored spouses but not limited to them – from leaving an abusive situation. Some witnesses mentioned, for example, different cultural understandings of violence, which may not include verbal, financial, or psychological abuse.[48] In some other cultures, it was stated, the physical abuse of women may be tolerated.

Kamal Dhillon, Canadian author, stated that “[m]arriage is considered to be permanent in many cultures, even though it’s slowly changing. We are supposed to stay silent and remain married no matter what.”[49] Other witnesses spoke of collectivist cultural values that emphasize family and “honour”, as in this quote from Lorris Herenda, of Yellow Brick House:

In some cultures women are perceived as carrying the family honour, which is controlled and protected by men. If a woman is perceived to have dishonoured the family, she may be assaulted, or as we've heard mentioned, killed through honour killing. A woman who leaves her abusive partner would be considered to have dishonoured her family and could potentially become a homicide victim.

If a woman is fleeing a violent home with her children, she is not only fleeing her abuser. She is also fleeing the extended family, both his and sometimes her own.[50]

Witnesses also suggested that people in the sponsored spouse’s cultural network, such as religious or community leaders, may encourage them to stay in the relationship, despite the abuse.[51] According to a number of witnesses, cultural factors can contribute to violence towards sponsored women and, at the same time, make it very difficult for them to leave an abusive relationship.

Finally, witnesses suggested that even when sponsored spouses acknowledged that they were in an abusive situation, as a result of previous experience in their countries of origin, these women might be reluctant to contact police out of fear and mistrust.[52] In the words of Heather Neufeld, of the Canadian Council for Refugees, women may be “afraid of the police and the authorities here because in many countries the police are organs of repression themselves.”[53]

C. Vulnerability Derived from the Formality of Marriage

The Committee wanted to know whether the type of marriage – proxy, arranged, “love” – made any difference in terms of the sponsored spouse’s vulnerability to abuse. Some witnesses stated that abuse happens in all kinds of marriages.[54] In the words of Poran Poregbal, of the Greater Vancouver Counselling and Education Society for Families, “I would say that domestic violence and abuse happens in all forms of marriages and partner relationships. It's beyond the formality of marriage, and it's beyond age, sex, ethnicity, and everything else.”[55]

 Forced marriage was of great concern to all witnesses who addressed it. In a forced marriage, one or both participants are married against their will. Mohammad Khan, of the Muslim Canadian Congress, referred to forced marriage as a “violation of fundamental rights and the right to self-determination.”[56] Witnesses saw forced marriage as a form of family violence, wherein women are more likely to be subject to other abuse as well.[57]

Witnesses acknowledged that there may be a fine line between an arranged and forced marriage. Laila Fakhri, of Herizon House Women's Shelter, felt that arranged marriage frequently evolves into forced marriage, and the incidence of abuse is higher in these situations.[58] Finally, Professor Audrey Macklin raised the concern that forced marriage needs to be addressed carefully, so that legitimate arranged marriages can still go forward.[59]

D. Vulnerability Derived from Immigration Status

Witnesses almost unanimously shared the view that the immigration status of sponsored spouses is a source of vulnerability to abuse and a barrier to leaving an abusive relationship. As Queenie Choo of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. explained, “immigrant women under the spousal sponsorship program are more vulnerable to abuses or domestic violence due to the sheer nature of the power imbalance in the relationship between them and their sponsor partners.”[60] Lawyer Elizabeth Long elaborated on this power imbalance:

There is a dilemma within the spousal sponsorship system itself, because the spousal sponsorship system is dependent on the family being together. If the woman leaves the husband, then they lose their ability to get permanent residence. What that means is that it results in situations where the abuser has tremendous power, which is magnified by this system.[61]

The fear of losing or not acquiring permanent legal immigration status in Canada, coupled with the fear of removal from Canada is a very powerful force in sponsored spouses’ lives. Witnesses addressed both the vulnerability of spouses with conditional permanent resident status and the vulnerability of those whose in-land sponsorship has broken down.

1. Sponsored Spouses with Conditional Permanent Residence

Most witnesses shared the view that the 2012 introduction of conditional permanent residence for certain sponsored spouses has increased their vulnerability to violence.[62] Specifically, witnesses indicated that the conditional permanent residence regime strengthens the power of the sponsoring spouse by giving them “a new way in which to make the sponsored spouse vulnerable or exploitable….the possibility of threatening removal from Canada by withdrawing the sponsorship.”[63] Ms. Neufeld described the different ways an abusive sponsor could use this power:

The sponsor is able to hold over the woman that basically if she doesn't obey, if she doesn't put up with the domestic violence and she leaves before the two years are up, she can find herself without status. He can also split up with her and cause her to not have status, or he can give tips to Immigration saying that she entered into the marriage fraudulently, even if she didn't.[64]

Alia Hogben, of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, also said:

Those of us who have worked in the field of violence against women know that for many women, educated or not, independent or not, self-confident or not, it is extremely difficult to come forward to report abuse and violence. Imagine how much more difficult it is to speak out for a newcomer in the precarious situation of a conditional permanent residence.[65]

While sponsors have always been able to threaten sponsored spouses with sponsorship breakdown and removal from Canada as a form of coercion, conditional permanent residence can make it a reality,[66] thus making the threat more powerful and credible. This is turn makes it “increasingly difficult for women living in violent homes to get free.”[67]

Given this legitimate fear of deportation, many sponsored spouses with conditional permanent resident status are unwilling to take the risk of leaving an abusive relationship. As suggested by Ms. Hogben, “[i]t is likely that some [immigrant] women will put up with the two years of abuse [as a result of the 2-year conditional permanent residence requirement] rather than approaching anyone officially.”[68]

As Ms. Virk explained, the permanent resident card and status in Canada is so important to sponsored spouses, they might not trust the exception provided.[69] Applying for the abuse exception provided in the Regulations may be perceived as risky. As Ms. Macklin explained, according to the Regulations, an abused sponsored woman is expected to “initiate the separation—which could lead to her removal from Canada—without any assurance, of course, that she will be believed in her account of being abused.”[70]

Witnesses focused significant attention on the required evidence spouses must supply in requesting an exception from the condition on permanent residence. Many expressed concern that the burden of proof for establishing abuse was too high, although witnesses had limited experience assisting women making these requests. However, witnesses identified the difficulties sponsored women could face in providing the evidence listed in Operational Bulletin 480. Emphasizing the reluctance of sponsored women to approach police and their isolation from social services, abused women may not be able to produce reports from police or women’s shelters as corroborating evidence. As Ms. Sekhar explained, “they are expected to provide evidence of cohabitation and abuse that are virtually impossible due to lack of reporting or access to services. In many instances documents of proof of cohabitation are with the sponsor.”[71] In sharing her concerns, lawyer Claudia Andrea Molina referred to her experience helping clients compile evidence of abuse for humanitarian and compassionate applications, reporting that it was very complicated and traumatizing for clients and – in the case of complaining to police in order to obtain a record – sometimes made the violence worse.[72]

Witnesses also explained that with education and communication training, women would be able to understand their rights in the sponsorship. Kathryn Marshall stated:

Well, I think the issue doesn’t seem to be so much the conditional status, it seems to be the issue of women being able to access the help and resources they need when they’re in positions where they are being abused. A huge barrier for women who are in these vulnerable situations is their inability to speak an official language. It’s very difficult to access front-line support networks when you’re not able to communicate, when you don’t know your rights, when you’re unsure of your legal status in the country”.[73]

Ms. Marshall and Ms. Siddiqui of the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations both emphasized the need for the conditional permanent resident status in order to combat marriages of convenience.

2. Spouses Being Sponsored through the In-land Process

The vulnerability of spouses in Canada whose sponsorship application is in process was identified by several witnesses. These women usually have temporary legal immigration status in Canada while their sponsorship application is being considered. Women have also found themselves without status when the sponsorship application was incomplete or was not submitted and their temporary status has expired.[74] Other examples of sponsorship breakdown shared by the witnesses include a sponsored spouse who left the relationship because of violence, or the sponsor withdrawing the sponsorship as part of the abuse or in retaliation for reporting abuse.[75] Lawyer Lorne Waldman stated that abused women in this situation are the most vulnerable because “they don't have any status. If the sponsorship is cancelled at any time, then their case is closed and they can be deported.”[76] However, the client has the option to apply for Humanitarian and Compassionate consideration. This provides the flexibility to grant permanent resident status to foreign nationals who would otherwise not qualify in any class, in cases in which there are compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Abused women in this situation are further vulnerable because what is often their only or best option for obtaining permanent resident status – an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds – is far from certain. Further, enforcement action including detention and removal from Canada may occur without consideration of these factors.[77] Even once an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds has been submitted, the applicant may still be removed from Canada before a decision is made.[78]

A couple of witnesses raised the particular situation of abused women who are mothers to Canadian citizen children and whose sponsorship has broken down. One example demonstrated how it was the best interests of the Canadian-born children that stopped the mother’s deportation, in a case which resulted in a successful application to remain on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.[79] Ms. Choo suggested that such women can be in a difficult position, caught between immigration and family law: living without status in Canada yet unable to leave with their children without consent from their ex-partner.[80]

Witnesses also spoke about the ways in which immigration status adds to the vulnerability of victims of forced marriage. According to these witnesses, coming forward to be identified as a victim of forced marriage reveals that the marriage was not consensual, thereby making the marriage void.[81] Not only would a sponsored spouse with conditional permanent resident status or a spouse being sponsored through the in-land sponsorship process lose their route to permanent residency as a result, they could be vulnerable to charges of immigration fraud. Further, forced marriage does not fit into the definition of abuse provided in the Regulations[82] for the exception to the condition on permanent residence, leaving women in this situation with no alternative but to stay in the abusive or forced relationship during the two year conditional period in order not to lose their immigration status.[83] Like others left without immigration status due to sponsorship breakdown, victims of forced marriage have to rely on an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to remain in Canada.