Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Amendments to Family Law Legislation

Amendments to Family Law Legislation

Mann Lawyers

Posted May 31, 2018

Bill C-78 has passed the first reading in the House of Commons, ushering in some changes to the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Division Act. If passed into law, the changes this Bill proposes to make to federal family law legislation will come into force in 2019.

The changes include replacing some hot button terminology like “custody” and “access” with “parenting order” and “parenting time” respectively, and substantive changes such as providing a list of guidelines the court must consider in cases where one parent wants to relocate the children to another jurisdiction.

The Bill also sets out criteria for the existing “best interests of the child” standard by which all custody and access claims are measured. These criteria can include whether a parent who engaged in family violence can care for and meet the needs of the child, the strength of the child’s relationship with parents and grandparents, and the ability of the parents to cooperate with respect to the child. The Bill also increases the focus on the linguistic, cultural, and spiritual heritage of the child, including Indigenous heritage.

Every parent seeking a parenting order will be able, and be required, to turn to the set of criteria as a starting point. The Courts will be required to consider these factors when making decisions. The mere fact that these specific criteria is listed out is a change that will impact the content of claims put forward by virtually all parents in the court system. Although “best interests” remains the ultimate standard, and claims in court today make reference to various factors that have been found to be relevant to the best interests tests, this new list will be a change to how these claims are structured.

Importantly, Bill C-78 would also give the court the explicit power to order the parties into an Alternative Dispute Resolution process, such as mediation. Although the court often encourages parties to participate in ADR processes, this additional power should give the court more force in recommending an ADR process to the parties.

The reality is that the vast majority of cases in litigation settle, even where the parties strongly disagree, or in cases that are factually or legally complex. Giving the courts the power to require parties to at least attempt to settle in the context of an ADR process should only further encourage parties to resolve matters without a contested hearing.

This blog post was written by Jenny Johnston, a member of our Family Law team.  She can be reached at 613-566-2081 or at jenny.johnston@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights, Commercial Litigation

By: 

Posted May 23, 2023

Both in my commercial and employment litigation practice, I encounter Ontario business owners faced with serious charges laid against them under the Provincial Offences Act[...]
Blog |
Family Law

By: 

Posted May 18, 2023

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, provides guidance on domestic contracts and the enforceability of an informal[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law

By: 

Posted May 16, 2023

When many people think of contaminated sites, they think of the usual suspects such as industrial properties and gas stations.  They may not think of[...]
Blog |
Business Law

By: 

Posted May 9, 2023

Often business owners reach a point where they are considering the sale of their business either through the sale of shares or the sale of[...]
Blog |
Family Law

By: 

Posted May 2, 2023

Overview of Tort Claims in Family Matters Tort claims can be made in family law matters, so as to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted April 25, 2023

In a case that recently was decided from the Court of Appeal of Ontario called Celestini v Shoplogix Inc., 2023 ONCA 131, the Court had[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.