Skip to main content
COVID-19 information and screening Learn how we’re keeping our campus community safe, healthy and engaged during our gradual return to campus.
Note: The university’s mandatory vaccine directive is now in effect. Learn more about vaccine requirements.
Ontario Tech acknowledges the lands and people of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation.

We are thankful to be welcome on these lands in friendship. The lands we are situated on are covered by the Williams Treaties and are the traditional territory of the Mississaugas, a branch of the greater Anishinaabeg Nation, including Algonquin, Ojibway, Odawa and Pottawatomi. These lands remain home to many Indigenous nations and peoples.

We acknowledge this land out of respect for the Indigenous nations who have cared for Turtle Island, also called North America, from before the arrival of settler peoples until this day. Most importantly, we acknowledge that the history of these lands has been tainted by poor treatment and a lack of friendship with the First Nations who call them home.

This history is something we are all affected by because we are all treaty people in Canada. We all have a shared history to reflect on, and each of us is affected by this history in different ways. Our past defines our present, but if we move forward as friends and allies, then it does not have to define our future.

Learn more about Indigenous Education and Cultural Services

The Historical Development of Children's Right to Protection from Harm in Canada

Lori Chambers, Professor, Women's Studies, Lakehead University

Published April 19, 2018 by Technologies of Justice.

On January 26, 2018, during the Technologies of Justice Conference hosted at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Lori Chambers discussed the state's role in the lives of children and families in relation to the historical development of children's right to protection from harm in Canada.

 

 

Chambers discussed a current case of failure in children’s protection from harm in terms of child welfare and child custody decisions. She pointed to red flags of potential lethality being ignored, and the role of controlling behaviour, intimidation and isolation in filicide and abuse.

She illustrated the need to disclose and monitor the occurrence of acts of intimidation and control in custody cases, noting there can be a failure to testify on cases of marital abuse in situations involving coercive control. She showed the correlation and likely chance of there being marital abuse in situations involving coercive control. She presented a case study in which there was evidence of holding the children hostage in threats of abduction, refusal to comply with Children’s Aid, and various other signs of coercive control. She defined the lack of care and involvement of the judges and courts in personal protection cases and cases of coercive control, as well as the willing ignorance of the courts in such cases. She highlighted the need for a recognition of coercive control in the court system, and the need for protection in cases such as the one in her study, to prevent the future abuse or death of children in the child welfare system.