2013
East & West Parry Sound Victim Services
JUST JARGON
INTRODUCTION
The 2013 National Victims of Crime Awareness Week theme “We can all play a role“ reflected the increasingly
complex task of providing services to victims of crime and tragic circumstances today. As agencies that provide services
to victims we face emerging challenges, such as a reduction in resources, changing demographics, immigration, human
trafficking, terrorism, new types of crime, and the use of technology both to commit and solve crimes.
We also confront enduring challenges. Victims’ rights are not universal and often not enforced. Victims do not
always receive the dignity and respect they deserve. Victims often absorb the physical, emotional, and financial costs
largely by themselves. Many violent crimes are not reported, and only a fraction of victims receive the help they need.
The purpose of “Just Jargon” was to learn more about these victims, how we can best help them, and how to better
focus our resources to reach each and every victim.
”Just Jargon” provided the opportunity for an open discussion about the services and programs available for
victims within the District of Parry Sound. Being knowledgeable about the services available to victims gave each of us
the opportunity to pass along information to someone whose life has been touched by crime and tragic circumstances.
We all can play a role in helping victims access the services available to them.
During the last year, these victims approached us with the hope of sharing their stories so we, and others, may
learn from their experiences. .
The invitation was extended to individuals who hold a strategic position within the agencies relevant to these
victims’ stories. This was not a public event and a limited number of people were invited.
The day consisted of several components. Initially, each of the two victims told their stories and answered
questions. The stories they told were current, occurred within the District of Parry Sound and served as a foundation for
the remainder of the days discussions. The remainder of the day was a moderated, solution focused, strength based
discussion with the objective being to chart a practical, manageable path to ensure that future outcomes for victims are
positive.
We wanted the service providers at “Just Jargon” to listen with open minds and think about how we could
better the services we offer at a local level. This was not to be a blaming session but only a way to hear directly from
consumers of the services what was and wasn’t effective. Where are the gaps?
Most importantly we wanted victims from our own community to be heard. We wanted this to be a safe
environment for them to tell their stories and express their experience, both good and bad.
1|P a g e
K’S STORY
K was our first speaker, she spoke to her life with her ex-husband who was physically, mentally, and emotionally
abusive, not only to her but also her three sons and pets. After many years, K left the relationship with very little
external support (services or family). After leaving, K had repeated negative interactions with a variety of service
providers, compounding her experience as a victim of domestic violence.
As a result of these past, well intentioned interactions, K continues to face challenges accessing service today.
For example:

The doctor who would stop in to check on her and the kids, and provided medical care for their injuries after a
violent episode; didn’t document the medical care. This, though well intentioned, left K with no medical history or
records.

The lawyer she acquired through legal aid when going to family court, didn’t take the time to explain the paperwork
K was signing, even after K expressed she could not read well. This left her with a divorce she didn’t ask for and no
support payments or a financial settlement of any kind from her ex. That lawyer told her she wasn’t allowed in the
court room when attending court and left her in the hallway with her ex just feet away.

The school personnel who noticed her sons bruises did not report to the proper authorities, but instead gave K a
warning that if it happened again they would report.
These actions by primary service providers hindered K’s ability to seek child and spousal support, file for victim
compensation, secure adequate affordable housing, find her medical records (which have disappeared), access income
support programs or secure other community supports due in part to the lack of a documented history of the abuse.
K was able to secure two jobs after she had left the abusive relationship however; K was fired from these jobs as
a result of the abuse. In one case her employer told her that it was because her ex was a threat to her and her coworkers (when the abuser began harassing and stalking her at her workplace). K believes that her second employer used
the excuse that an old injury made her unable to perform her work duties.
Eventually when her children were old enough she fled to Parry Sound to get away from her ex and she was able
to access appropriate services in this community. One was hiring a new lawyer through legal aid to help her in family
court. Although this lawyer has been more respectful in his treatment of K, on two occasions he told her that he had put
2|P a g e
her file on the floor and had forgotten about her. This was extremely significant for K as it fed into her belief that others
perceive her as being worthless, insignificant and forgettable.
THEMES/DISCUSSION TOPICS
All these events serve to re-victimise K and we need to be able to identify ways of reducing the potential for revictimisation. Although K’s story is older and many of the services have improved over the years, her recent experiences
attest that there are still improvements that can be made.
During the discussion some of the practices that were put in place over the last 20 years to help decrease the revictimization in the systems were reviewed, such as:

Children's Aid Society as of the late 90's incorporated domestic violence into their procedures as a family problem,
recognizing the trauma experienced by a child.

The Ontario Provincial Police currently have a zero tolerance policy towards domestic violence; if charges can be laid
they will be, with or without the victim’s consent.

B 168 was enacted to help prevent workplace harassment and workplace violence.
THEME ONE: IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES
Unfortunately, it was also acknowledged that some of these practices discussed above were in place when K was
in need. It became evident that it may not always be the system policies that are the problem; it may also be the
inconsistent implementation of those policies.
This is critically important in a human service field. We are working with people’s lives and livelihood and it is
impossible to replace time wasted and a soul broken because of mistakes made by well-intentioned people who may
care, but behaved in ways that damaged more than healed. Although in this case, actions were well intentioned and it is
understandable why, in that moment of compassion and protection these actions were taken, unintentionally
reinforcing the cycle of violence. These well-intentioned persons did not give the victim the tools to make difference
choices for her/himself and their children.
How do we remedy this? It may be as simple as

Continued education about the consequences of unintentionally supporting the cycle of abuse or

Supporting our staff/service providers to talk about cases they are unsure of and

Doing regular reviews of our institutionalized policies and systems?
3|P a g e
In K's case the people not following the existing protocols, procedures and/or policies felt that they were doing
what was best for her and the family. For example, the school principal, by giving her a second chance when her son
showed up with bruises allowed her to avoid a potentially unpleasant experience with the police and or CAS. The
unintended consequence was to allow more time for the abuse to continue unreported, no services to be offered to K at
that time and her remaining unaware of the
option to leave the relationship. It also means that there is no
documentation of a history of abuse. This is also the case with the Doctor that completed undocumented house calls.
The actions of the doctor, school principle, police, and employers have hindered her throughout the family court
process, in accessing victim compensation, adequate housing and income support.
K’s loss of jobs because of the abusive situation was broached and it was commented that this happened before
B 168 was enacted but would never happen now. The question was then asked, “Would K have been fired even with B
168?” Does this bill really protect the disposable job industry such as fast food restaurants where employees are usually
from marginalized populations, replacements are not difficult to find and are perceived as disposable?
If co-workers are notified as required under B 168 that there is a threat in the work place they have the right to
refuse work because of this threat? Would this change the dynamic of the work environment and cause the victim to be
treated differently? Would the co-workers refuse to work because of the threat and the owners see it as more beneficial
to find a way to dismiss the victim?
THEME TWO: COMMUNICATION AND SERVICE NAVIGATION
Encompassed within this theme is both interagency communication and also effective communication with
victims of violence.
K herself has said “I would have left in a minute if someone asked”. The assumption that people will ask for help
when they are ready to leave, in this case, was erroneous. Is it possible that the majority of people living with abuse may
not even think it is possible? They may see professionals not asking or offering assistance as evidence that their situation
is normal and feed into the belief that they deserve the abuse.
In Ks case, instead of asking the question which would give K the option to leave and open the door for the
provision of services , she was told “Things will get better when he sobers up” or “You don’t want to the pot to boil
over” which were messages that reinforced her belief that staying was the only option.
4|P a g e
District of Social Services Administration Board Parry Sound has worked hard to fill in this gap by creating a universal
consent between all their programs, e.g. housing to shelter. This makes communication between departments faster
and more effective. This allows for inter-department feedback and suggestions that makes each workers job easier and
less stressful, in turn most importantly this means a better level of service for the clients.
As service providers we need to examine our assumptions about domestic violence (i.e. she won’t leave, or she’ll
go back). How do we know our assumptions are correct? Sometimes we feel we know the answer before we have asked
the question. In K’s case, these well intentioned service providers reinforced the beliefs held by the victim.
One barriers discussed was the discomfort of service providers to ask or offer services and support because they
are not confident that they will have the resources to help.
We as service providers need to be aware of existing resources and what is available for someone wanting to
leave an abusive relationship. Navigating local services (or the lack of services) is often difficult and confusing for those
of us who work within the system. To someone in an abusive relationship, it can be impossible to navigate the many
services, understand what to ask or how to ask. Without a supportive initial contact, asking the victim the right question,
they may never realize what is possible. We need to enhance communication between ourselves as service providers to
keep current with what the community offers and how we each can contribute. Communication and collaboration
between agencies is critical.
Additionally, interagency collaboration may be difficult due to, policies and legal obligations related to
confidentially and the security of personal information. Although these are there to protect an individuals’ information,
it can be a time consuming and confusing process to secure the appropriate individual agency consents.
IDEAS AND ACTION ITEMS THAT STEMMED FROM THIS DISCUSSION WERE:
A. Training for professionals about how to ask the question “Do you want to leave?”
B. How to provide access to supportive, appropriate and timely services if the answer is yes.
C. The viability of a universal community consent that will allow open communication between agencies while
protecting an individual’s personal information and adhering to existing legislation
5|P a g e
B’S STORY
Our next speaker was B; he spoke about his life with his ex-wife and her physically/mental/emotional /sexual
abuse of him and his sons. They started dating in 1991, and eventually married. As the relationship progress she would
become increasingly violent when she would drink. Eventually she became pregnant and through the course of the
relationship had two sons with B. It wasn’t until May 2005 that B ended the relationship when she attempted to strangle
him while he was sleeping. After the marriage ended he discovered she been frequently unfaithful including an affair
with a 16 year old boy and then a long-term affair with a young man (between the ages of 19-21).
At this time B moved to southern Ontario to work and get away from his spouse. He maintained contact with his
sons, seeing them as often as finances and his ex-wife would allow. In 2012 both boys started pressuring B to let them
move in with him. The youngest son finally disclosed that he was uncomfortable with the way their mother was touching
him When B questioned his oldest son, he reluctantly admitted that their mother had been inappropriate as well, and
did not stop until he literally pushed her out of his bed.
It was at this point that B moved back to this district to be with his sons, who were still in their mother’s care. B
contacted his ex and demanded that this inappropriate behaviour stop. B did not report the abuse because he did not
want to put his sons through the embarrassment of disclosure.
Since becoming a client with Victim Services Family Court Support Program, B has re-gained custody of his boys;
his ex-wife filed papers to fight the custody in court but withdrew before it was heard. B believes this was because his
ex-spouse s lawyer told her that the abuse allegations would be brought out in court and she did not want this to
happen. The abuse was reported to the CAS and the allegations were investigated by CAS and the police. B recounts that
an officer stated that “her actions could easily be interpreted as motherly affection” B felt this remark was extremely
bias “if it was me and I was doing that to my 15 year old daughter – I would be in jail”.
There currently have been no charges laid against the mother for the abuse of the boys. B said that the boys are
involved with HANDS (children’s mental health services) and receiving counselling.
B reported that the boys are much happier, and that their school grades are going up significantly since leaving
their mothers care. However the court conditions do require B to stay in the local area where he struggles to find work
and feels constantly watch by his ex-spouses large family.
6|P a g e
B was very clear on how he saw the situation and what he perceived to be the gaps in his service. He felt no one
would believe him in regards to his ex’s physical abuse, and if they did, the reaction would not be sympathetic, he
believed that people would tell him to “man up”.
He feels cornered by the court conditions to stay in the area where he cannot find work and consequently
struggles to afford housing. The court indicated that the boys should have access and visit their mother however neither
boy wishes to have any contact with her. He feels he is harassed by the ex-spouses family, and struggles to get his exspouse to pay the child support that is part of the court conditions.
It is clear that B was angry at the situation and the system. He felt that the system has not served him well.
THEMES/DISCUSSION TOPICS
One of the key discussion topics that emerged centered on the assumptions we make about the validity of the
information provided and how our and B’s biases affect our service response. The perspective of males as victims of
violence (sexual and physical) was discussed.
We, as service providers, have less experience supporting and working with male victims of violence. It is human
nature to react negatively and defensively when someone (for example B) presents with anger, distrust and extreme
shame. As service providers we need to look at:

How we react to males as victims and our gender based assumptions.

How do men ask for help, is it different from women?

What barriers do men experience?
B’s own guilt and anger prevented him from seeking help as though he was somehow at fault for not preventing his own
abuse and the sexual abuse of his sons.
It appeared generally accepted in the room that K was easier to empathise with then B. Was it easier to
empathise with K because she was a female and crying, and B was male and angry? This question was not resolved.
It was identified that there are limited resources available for male victims. How can we use our local resources
and knowledge to better serve the needs of men?
Similar issues related to communication and service navigation identified during our discussion of K’s case are
were also voiced in relation to B’s case.
7|P a g e
B was involved with a number of services that were aware that employment and housing were areas of stress
for him as B was very vocal on this point. Yet B was not aware that he would qualify for affordable housing.
Communication would also be a valuable tool in reducing B’s anger. B reported that he was unaware of the
outcome of the sexual abuse investigations. Consequently, B has made negative assumptions about the agencies he
believed would protect his boys. As the custodial parent and advocate for his boys, these assumptions have made B’s
working with these services/agencies problematic.
8|P a g e
CONCLUSION AND THANKS
Just Jargon was an opportunity to look at our values, how to improve service provision at a local level and
identify the assumptions we all make when we respond to victims of violence. As service providers, our professional
relationships are a significant part of our work, how we communication is crucial to how we provide services and our
effectiveness in service provision. Taking the time to listen to what individuals have to say, understanding their personal
histories and experiences, and recognizing the significant impact that we, as service providers may have was a valued
experience.
During the day the discussion was focus heavily on the assumptions we as individuals make. . During Just Jargon
participants were privileged to hear two people tell of their life experience as victims of violence. The openness and
honesty of the speakers was a rare gift that informed our discussion. We are grateful that the service providers took
time out of their busy schedule to take part in this day. We hope that as service providers, we can work toward
improving how we respond to victims within our community.
Note:
The title “Just Jargon” came as a result of a discussion around the lunch table. One of the staff (to whom English is a second
language) mentioned that many times our conversations are lost to her because it is all “Just Jargon” – we wondered how many times
individuals who seek our services feel that we speak “Just Jargon”
9|P a g e