Dec 2025, | Synchronicity Second Stage Transition House Program

By: Zahra Hashemi

At Synchronicity Second Stage Transition House Program, we see every day how tailored support, safe housing, and a caring community can transform the lives of survivors of gender-based violence (GBV). One participant’s story reminds us that safety and support are more than just services, they are lifelines.

When she first arrived, she carried heavy burdens: navigating the complexities of newcomer life, securing stable housing, helping her child adjust to school, attending English classes, and managing forms and appointments, all while processing her experience of violence. Health concerns had gone unnoticed for months, overshadowed by the many demands on her time and energy.

Through the program, she found a safe space to focus on herself and her family. Staff helped identify and address health issues she hadn’t realized were impacting on her child’s well-being. They provided guidance on housing, supported her children’s schooling, helped her enroll in English classes, and connected her to community resources, all while ensuring her safety.

“This program was like a wheelchair for me,” she reflected. “Having that support just changed my life, and I was able to walk again.”

Our team’s consistent follow-up, personalized support, and community connections gave her the tools to rebuild self-confidence and self-worth. By removing barriers, providing guidance, and listening without judgment, Synchronicity created an environment where she could thrive.

Her journey shows the power of a comprehensive approach to supporting survivors:

• Safe and stable housing
• Connection to community resources
• Guidance on newcomer-specific needs
• Access to health services
• Support for children’s education
• Opportunities to rebuild confidence and self-worth

At Synchronicity, we believe that every survivor deserves a chance at safety, stability, and empowerment. With the right support in place, lives can be transformed, and hope can be restored.

Synchronicity Second Stage Transition House Program | BWSS

Remarks by Angela Marie MacDougall

Executive Director, Battered Women’s Support Services
Victoria Courthouse Press Conference – attended virtually

Thank you.
My name is Angela Marie MacDougall, and I’m the Executive Director of Battered Women’s Support Services in British Columbia.

I’m here today not only because of the killing of Laura Gover, but because what happened here fits a pattern that all levels of government already know, already recognize, and have already said they intend to address.

And yet women keep being killed.

It was in the1990’s that anti-violence organizations began pressing governments and more recently with urgency after nearly forty-five women have been killed since August 2024. These deaths did not happen in ignorance. They happened during a period when all levels of government were acknowledging risk, commissioning reports, and promising reform.

That matters.

Because it tells us this is not about a lack of evidence.
It is not about a lack of tools.
It is about a lack of ownership.

What we are seeing is systemic, and it sits at the intersection of police practice, Crown decision-making, judicial discretion, and a deep structural divide between criminal law and family law.

Many women leave abusive relationships and never involve the criminal legal system at all. If they have children with their abusive partner, they are forced to go to family law. They seek protection orders through the family law system. And they do exactly what they are told to do to keep themselves and their children safe.

And they reasonably believe that once the state is involved, risk will be reduced – they are optimistic.

But risk lives in the space between systems.
And no one owns that space.

Police can say they did not meet a threshold.
Crown counsel can say the file was insufficient.
Judges can say they ruled on what was before them.

The family law system can say it is acting in the best interest of the children

And the woman is left unprotected.

When institutions are organized this way, responsibility is endlessly deferred while danger escalates.

The Attorney General has said that risk assessment is a priority.
The Stanton report laid out the failures clearly.

Articulating an intention to do something but there are no timelines.
No public benchmarks.
No implementation deadlines.

Without timelines, governments can sit on intentions indefinitely.

That is not neutral. That is a choice.

Risk assessment in theory without obligation becomes performative.
Commitments without deadlines become delay.

And women die in that space. Women die in that space. This is the space where women die.

We are not here simply to name failure. We are here to be clear about what prevention actually requires.

Our Five Asks of all levels of government are not radical. They are the minimum conditions for safety.

We are calling for mandatory, standardized risk assessment across police, Crown, courts, child protection, and family law, so danger is identified early and acted on consistently.

We are calling for municipal gender-based violence task forces in every community, because local governments must treat this as a core public safety responsibility, not a social service issue to be downloaded to the victim and uploaded to provincial or federal governments.

We are calling for stabilized core funding for frontline anti-violence services, a minimum 15% bump in emergency funding to meet this current crisis so victims and survivors can access crisis response, legal advocacy, housing support, and counselling without delays, waitlists, or gaps.

We are calling for a long-term prevention campaigns, so the public understands coercive control, strangulation, stalking, digital violence, and other indicators of escalating risk.

And we are calling for a dedicated gender-based violence lead within Public Safety and the Attorney General’s offices, with authority to coordinate system change, ensure oversight, and monitor implementation across ministries.

None of these work in isolation. Together, they create prevention.

Accountability also matters after death.

We are calling for mandatory coroner’s inquests in femicide cases where a protection order or peace bond was sought or granted. Not to assign individual blame, but to expose systemic gaps, missed interventions, and institutional failure so they cannot be ignored or repeated.

Governments often point to bail reform as evidence of action.

But tools only matter if they are used.

In October 2025 in Kelowna three months after the horrific femicide of Bailey McCourt, in a different case, an accused had his bail revoked only after a judge conducted a risk assessment. That tells us something important. The problem is not the absence of tools. The problem is the failure to apply them consistently.

Governments know how to own complex, high-risk infrastructure when they choose to.

Building new Highways come with timelines – Pipelines come with timelines.
They come with oversight.
They come with leadership and consequences for failure.

Women’s safety does not.

Gender-based violence and in particular intimate partner violence continues to be treated as a private issue when it must be governed as social public safety infrastructure.

Femicide is predictable.
Femicide is preventable.

What is missing is political ownership – from all levels of government.

Women are being killed in the space between systems that refuse to own the outcome.

And that is what must change.

Thank you.

VICTORIA, BC — This press conference takes place on the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, known today as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Community and anti-violence organizations from across Vancouver Island gathered today at the Victoria Courthouse to honour the life of Laura Gover and to speak collectively about intimate partner violence as a social and public safety issue that requires action before harm occurs.

Laura Gover was forty-one years old, a mother of two, and a respected educator who taught at Vancouver Island University and Camosun College. She was found dead in her home on January 5, 2026. A man has since been charged with second degree murder, and the courts have identified the case as an alleged incident of intimate partner violence. While legal proceedings are ongoing, organizations emphasized that silence in the face of repeated and predictable patterns of violence is not a neutral response.

Speakers centred the impact of Laura’s death on her children, loved ones, students, and community, and underscored that intimate partner violence is not a private tragedy but a public safety failure when known risk is not acted upon. Organizations spoke with a united voice about the urgency of prevention, accountability, and coordinated intervention when warning signs are present.

Frontline experience and research consistently show that violence in intimate partner relationships often escalates during periods of separation and that risk is frequently visible well before harm becomes lethal. Women’s stated fear, breaches of court orders, stalking, coercive control, and prior system involvement are well established indicators of heightened danger. When these indicators are minimized or fragmented across systems, responsibility is too often shifted onto women to manage their own safety rather than onto perpetrators and the institutions mandated to intervene.

Since August 2024, nearly forty-five women have been killed in British Columbia in contexts of intimate partner or gender-based violence, according to tracking by anti-violence organizations. These deaths reflect a pattern, not isolated incidents. Each loss underscores the cost of delayed action and the consequences of treating prevention as optional rather than essential public safety infrastructure.

Organizations called for immediate and coordinated action to prevent further loss of life. These actions include consistent and mandatory intimate partner violence risk assessment that triggers intervention when high risk is identified, meaningful enforcement and monitoring of protection orders and release conditions, coordinated leadership at the provincial level to align responses across police forces and ministries, sustained investment in frontline anti-violence services as core public safety resources, and prevention efforts that occur before crisis rather than after tragedy.

Throughout the press conference, speakers stressed respect for due process and family privacy. No speculation was made about the facts of this case. The focus remained on honouring victims and survivors, prevention, social and public safety, and systemic responsibility.

Organizations also announced the release of a provincial sign on statement calling for coordinated prevention and accountability measures to address intimate partner violence across British Columbia. Community organizations across the province are invited to endorse the statement and to participate in ongoing advocacy to advance these actions.

Respect for family privacy and due process remains central to this work. Speaking out about prevention and public safety is how lives are honoured and how future harm can be prevented.

Quotes

We gather here today to reaffirm to victims and their families that they deserve better. They deserve safety and systems that believe them and act swiftly to protect them. And we will not stop fighting for that. – Bahar Dehnadi, Executive Director, Victoria Women’s Transition House Society

Women need to be believed when they say they are afraid.  A woman’s fear is a risk factor that needs to be taken seriously. She needs protection that is comprehensive, monitored, and enforced. Our systems need to stop putting all the responsibility for protecting herself on the victim.  That is impossible at best, lethal at worst. – Marlene Goley, Manager, The Cridge Transition House and Outreach Services

Protection on paper is not protection in practice. When women speak fear, systems must listen and act—before violence turns lethal.” – Liza Scott, Executive Director, Cowichan Women Against Violence Society 

Women are being killed while risk is already known and governments are already on notice. This is not a failure of awareness or tools. It is a failure of political ownership across systems that continue to treat intimate partner violence as optional rather than as core public safety infrastructure. – Angela Marie MacDougall, Executive Director
Battered Women’s Support Services

We know through self-disclosed data, in Canada, 44% of women over the age of 15 reported being impacted by intimate partner violence in their lifetime. By this statistic, everyone most likely knows someone who has, or will be, impacted by intimate partner violence. This stat should scare us. As a community, we need to demand systemic change to ensure that we are keeping women and children safe. – Karlee Grant, Director of Housing and Community Supports, SSVP

At Sooke Transition House Society, we see every day that intimate partner violence follows predictable patterns and that risk is often visible long before harm becomes fatal. Prevention requires more than awareness after tragedy – it requires systems that listen to women’s stated fears, intervene when danger is identified, and take responsibility for coordinated action. Honouring lives lost means acting earlier, together. – Tara Wolff, Executive Director, Sooke Transition House Society

Margaret Laurence House and our Board of Directors, the Greater Victoria Women’s Shelter Society, believe in the inherent right of women and children to live free of violence. We believe that systemic change needs to take place in order for this vision to be realized. Such change could prevent tragedies like the death of Laura Gover. Our thoughts are with Laura’s loved ones and community on this sad day. – Melanie Smart, Managing Counsellor – Margaret Laurence House

A breach was a warning. The system treated it as paperwork.

A woman in Saanich, British Columbia, Laura Gover, had a Family Law Act protection order. She had a detailed safety plan. She took extra precautions in her home, including a doorbell camera and extra locks. Friends described her as exhausted from living in a constant, heightened state of fear. On the day the accused was scheduled to appear in court for breaching that protection order, she was killed.

These facts are not abstract details. They are evidence of compliance with the very actions the system tells women to take when their lives are at risk. Women are told to seek protection orders, to plan for safety, and to rely on the justice system when a partner threatens violence. In this case, she did all those things. Violence still happened.

The video below features a longtime friend speaking about her efforts to stay safe. Her testimony should not be dismissed as emotion. The choices she made were not optional precautions. They were responses to known danger. Fear, in this context, was information, not hyperbole. The system knew risk existed. The system did not act as one.

A Breach Was a Moment for Action

A protection order granted legal constraints on contact. Reports indicate that this order was breached. A breach is not a technical process issue. A breach is a clear signal that danger has escalated. Surgeons respond to bleeding. Engineers respond to structural stress. When someone breaches a protection order, the justice system should respond with urgency.

Police, Crown counsel, and judges are all actors in that response. The way a protection order is enforced or escalated can mean the difference between safety and harm. Multiple detachments may hold information in separate files, as media reporting has suggested in this case. Fragmented information can lead to fragmented responses. Fragmented responses leave survivors exposed.

A response that treats breaches as routine paperwork or discretionary enforcement is not a response at all. A response that fails to integrate risk information across systems allows danger to continue.

Patterns We Have Documented

In 2024, BWSS released Justice or “Just a Piece of Paper?” because we were already seeing the same failure pathway repeat in cases across the province. Women complied with protective measures. Orders were breached. Risk escalated. Enforcement was inconsistent. Decision-makers in the justice system did not act in coordinated, preventive ways. The losses continued.

That report was not a collection of isolated stories. It was a call to acknowledge systemic failure. It named specific interventions that would create a justice response aligned with the lived realities of survivors. The recommendations that follow reflect the patterns we identified and the institutional responses needed to interrupt violence before it becomes fatal.

What Must Change

Mandatory Inquests When Protection Fails

When a woman is killed after seeking or holding a protection order or peace bond, a coroner’s inquest must follow immediately. This process is not intended to blame individuals. It is intended to examine the circumstances that allowed danger to continue. An inquest should determine what happened, why it happened, and how future deaths can be prevented. When protection is granted and still fails, the justice system must examine itself publicly and honestly. With each inquest, patterns become visible. Accountability becomes unavoidable.

Align Protection with Risk Duration

Decades of research and frontline practice show that the first two years following separation are the most dangerous. Protection orders and Section 810 peace bonds frequently expire long before the risk does. Requiring a two-year minimum for these orders aligns legal protection with actual risk. Survivors should not be forced to repeatedly engage with the court system just to maintain continuous protection. Frequent renewals expose survivors to additional stress and potential contact with the person who has harmed them.

Full-Length Orders on Without-Notice Applications

A without-notice protection order is granted because notifying the opposing party can increase danger. When judges issue short, interim orders that require a hearing within days, survivors are returned to court unnecessarily. This procedural requirement creates opportunities for coercion, intimidation, and re-engagement. Full-length orders in the first instance stop that loophole. They give survivors the uninterrupted time and stability they need to build safety, not fear repeated court contact as a condition of staying protected.

Centre Child Safety

The Family Law Act recognizes that exposure to intimate partner violence is itself a serious risk to children. In practice, however, courts still too often default to maximizing shared parenting time even when violence is present. Safety for children should always take precedence. When children are exposed to violence, the consequences are lifelong. Courts must require comprehensive risk assessments and ensure protection orders explicitly safeguard children from exposure to harm.

Universal, Cross-Jurisdictional Police Response to Breaches

Inconsistent police responses to breaches of protection orders and peace bonds are a persistent problem. A breach in one jurisdiction can be deprioritized, while in another it triggers immediate action. Survivors should receive equal protection regardless of where a breach occurs. Police forces across regions must adopt universal standards that include mandatory arrest for breaches, integrated databases that allow officers to see the full history of risk, and training that reflects the dynamics of intimate partner violence. Consistent enforcement sends a clear message that breaches will be taken seriously and that legal protections mean something.

Why This Matters Now

These recommendations were not abstract ideas. They were grounded in patterns already visible before this death. Inaction on these recommendations is not neutral. It means the same failure pathways will continue to produce the same outcomes.

This is not a personal tragedy. It is a systemic one. When a protection order is breached and the justice system does not respond as a unified, risk-informed mechanism, the protections become paperwork. That is not prevention. That is abandonment packaged as process.

Women should not have to manage danger alone while systems debate process. Women should not be told to do “everything right” and still be killed. The responsibility for preventing violence cannot be shifted onto those at risk. Justice must act when danger is known. Lives depend on it.

A woman in Saanich, BC is dead.

Public reporting shows the accused had previously breached a court order involving an intimate partner. That is not a neutral detail. It is a known risk indicator.

Two years ago, BWSS released Justice or “Just a Piece of Paper?” because we were seeing the same warning signs over and over: court orders issued without enforcement, breaches treated as administrative failures rather than signals of escalating danger, and systems that respond after violence instead of preventing it.

We wrote that report because breaches of court orders are not paperwork problems instead they are moments where the system has clear notice that someone may be in lethal danger. When those moments do not trigger immediate, coordinated risk response by the system, women are left exposed.

Criminal and family law systems issue protection orders independently, without a shared risk framework or coordinated enforcement. When breaches fall between those systems, accountability disappears and women are left exposed to escalating, often lethal, violence.

We do not need all the details of this case to name what is already clear, that a breach occurred that the criminal system knew that the response was insufficient and now woman is now dead.

This is why femicide prevention cannot rely on court orders alone…intimate partner violence requires enforcement, mandatory risk assessment when orders are breached, and real system accountability before harm becomes fatal, not after.