The Single Mothers’ Alliance Legal Aid Litigation
Achievements and next steps in legal aid for family violence survivors
Survivors of family violence have long faced multiple barriers to accessing legal protections and remedies in their family law cases, with often devastating impacts on their ability to live full and equal lives free from violence. The B.C. government’s cuts to family law legal aid in 2002 reinforced these barriers by depriving marginalized survivors of legal representation. In the years that followed, members of the legal and anti-violence communities advocated for funding to be restored and for improved treatment of survivors within the legal aid system. Yet, their calls to action went largely unheeded.
In 2017, the Single Mothers’ Alliance (SMA) (now known as the Centre for Family Equity) and two courageous mothers teamed up to launch a constitutional challenge to legal aid services for survivors of family violence in family law cases. The plaintiffs represented the interests of low-income single mothers across B.C. who faced ongoing abuse and could not access legal aid. Some of the mothers were not poor enough to qualify for legal aid. For others, their legal aid coverage was too limited to resolve their safety concerns. The plaintiffs argued that these access gaps violated the mothers’ rights to equality and security of the person under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as well as their right to access to justice under section 96 of the Constitution.
West Coast LEAF and dedicated pro bono counsel represented the plaintiffs. The SMA had to overcome applications to strike the claim and a challenge to its public interest standing before ultimately securing an access to justice victory for single mothers. In 2024, after nearly seven years of litigation, the parties reached a resolution that included a $29.1 million investment in family law legal aid services. The funding expanded legal aid eligibility for survivors and created a specialized legal clinic to meet their unique legal and non-legal needs.
Today, Legal Aid BC’s asset eligibility test exempts up to $30,000 in certain savings accounts held by survivors and all assets held by survivors who apply for legal aid within six months of separating from their abuser. The Family Law Centre (FLC)—which offers both in-person and hybrid services—has a team of staff lawyers and advocates that takes a holistic approach to assisting survivors. FLC lawyers are not subject to rigid caps on their time. Instead, they provide representation to each client until their legal situation has been meaningfully stabilized. If a survivor is eligible for FLC services but cannot receive them (for instance, due to a lack of FLC capacity), Legal Aid BC provides their tariff lawyer with additional hours.
While the SMA litigation resulted in meaningful change, survivors continue to confront access to justice barriers within and outside B.C.’s legal aid system. At West Coast LEAF, we regularly hear from survivors, advocates, and lawyers about a lack of public transparency around Legal Aid BC’s application process and eligibility criteria. This means that when survivors are denied legal aid, it is difficult to determine whether the eligibility criteria were properly applied. Moreover, some survivors never apply for legal aid in the first place because of mistaken assumptions about their eligibility.
Even with the support of a legal aid lawyer, survivors face a more pernicious problem: a legal system that remains under-responsive to their experiences of violence and safety concerns. West Coast LEAF’s recent advocacy has thus focused on challenging the harmful influence of myths and stereotypes about family violence, particularly the pervasive myth that women lie about family violence to gain the upper hand in their family law cases.
Earlier this year, for example, West Coast LEAF and Rise Women’s Legal Centre co-intervened in the appeal of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476. We urged the Supreme Court of Canada to recognize the existence of myths and stereotypes about family violence in family law cases and treat them as an error of law. The Court’s judgment is reserved.
The resolution of the SMA litigation was one piece of a larger access to justice puzzle. While survivors continue to navigate a challenging legal landscape, there is a robust advocacy community that stands behind them and will not give up their fight for a legal system that takes survivors’ safety and equality seriously.
