Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Compromise on Parenting and Family Violence? Reforms to Canada’s Divorce Act

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 03 June 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

This paper contributes to international feminist debates on shared parenting and family violence via reforms to Canada’s Divorce Act, in force since 2021. Looking backwards, it reviews parliamentary debates and early judicial discussions. The documentary review reads the reforms as an unstable compromise between calls from feminist voices and experts on family violence and from groups representing fathers. Family violence is now defined broadly and declared relevant to children’s welfare. But language in the statute may undermine its seriousness. Exposing the tensions underlying these reforms is useful for Canadian participants in family justice and for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers elsewhere, exemplifying the promise and perils of reform in this area. Looking ahead, the paper offers recommendations to higher courts. Appellate judges should read rules on contact with both parents and parental cooperation in the light of the new recognition of family violence, taking the latter as an overarching objective of the statute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. Bill C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl (assented to 21 June 2019), SC 2019, c 16.

  2. Children Act 1989, s 1(2A).

  3. Barendregt v Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, 469 DLR (4th) 1 at para 192, Côté J, dissenting.

  4. Divorce Act (1986), s 16(1).

  5. Divorce Act (1986), s 2(1) “custody”.

  6. Divorce Act (1986), s 16(8).

  7. Divorce Act (1986), s 16(9).

  8. Divorce Act (1986), s 16(10).

  9. Divorce Act (1986), s 16(10).

  10. Divorce Act, s 16.1(1).

  11. Divorce Act, ss 2(1) “parenting time”, 16.2(2).

  12. Divorce Act, ss 2(1) “decision-making responsibility”, 16.3.

  13. Divorce Act, s 16.5(1).

  14. Divorce Act, ss 16(1), 16(3).

  15. Divorce Act, s 16(2).

  16. Divorce Act, s 16(3)(c).

  17. Divorce Act, s 16(3)(i).

  18. Divorce Act, s 2(1) “family violence”.

  19. Divorce Act, s 2(1) “family violence”.

  20. Divorce Act, s 2(1) “family violence” (f).

  21. Divorce Act, s 2(1) “family violence” (g).

  22. Divorce Act, s 2(1) “family violence” (h).

  23. Divorce Act, s 16(4)(a).

  24. Divorce Act, s 16(3)(j)(i).

  25. Divorce Act, ss 7.3, 7.7(1), 7.7(2)(a).

  26. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,866 (Hon Jody Wilson-Raybould).

  27. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,039 (Elizabeth May).

  28. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,866 (Hon Jody Wilson-Raybould). See also similarly House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,202 (Michael Cooper); Senate Debates, 42-1, No 273 (21 March 2019) at 7,685 (Hon Julie Miville-Dechêne); House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,870 (David Tilson); Senate Debates, 42-1, No 267 (26 February 2019) at 7,466 (Hon Pierre Dalphond).

  29. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,042 (Luc Berthold); also House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,220; House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,870 (David Tilson); House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,215 (John Brassard).

  30. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,866 (Hon Jody Wilson-Raybould).

  31. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,870 (David Tilson).

  32. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,209 (Cathay Wagantall); see similarly House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,211 (Blake Richards).

  33. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,209 (Cathay Wagantall).

  34. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,871 (David Tilson).

  35. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,867 (Hon Jody Wilson-Raybould); see also House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,205 (Randeep Sarai); Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,716 (Hon Donna Dasko).

  36. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 267 (26 February 2019) at 7467 (Hon Pierre Dalphond); see also House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,205 (Randeep Sarai) (Chief Public Health Officer of Canada having “identified family violence as an important public health issue”).

  37. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,867 (Hon Jody Wilson-Raybould); see also House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,201 (Nick Whalen); House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,203 (Arif Virani); House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,036 (Brigitte Sansoucy).

  38. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 305 (18 June 2019) at 8,706 (Hon Pierre Dalphond).

  39. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,039 (Elizabeth May).

  40. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,035 (Michael Cooper); see also House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,039 (Elizabeth May) (not all cases involving cisgendered individuals in heterosexual relationships).

  41. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 267 (26 February 2019) at 7467 (Hon Pierre Dalphond).

  42. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,873 (Brigitte Sansoucy).

  43. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 273 (21 March 2019) at 7,686 (Hon Julie Miville-Dechêne).

  44. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,716 (Hon Donna Dasko).

  45. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,716 (Hon Donna Dasko); see also Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,717 (Hon Yvonne Boyer); House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,034, 25,041 (Brigitte Sansoucy); Senate Debates, 42-1, No 273 (21 March 2019) at 7,685 (Hon Julie Miville-Dechêne).

  46. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,718 (Hon Yvonne Boyer); see similarly Senate Debates, 42-1, No 273 (21 March 2019) at 7,685 (Hon Julie Miville-Dechêne).

  47. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,031 (Elizabeth May); see also House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,036 (Brigitte Sansoucy). This need is emphasised in Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (2019: 5). But, given the constitutional division of powers, provincial and territorial authority over law societies might preclude legislation on the matter by the Parliament of Canada: Senate Debates, 42-1, No 305 (18 June 2019) at 8,706 (Hon Pierre Dalphond).

  48. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,039 (Elizabeth May).

  49. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,030 (Hon David Lametti).

  50. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 374 (30 January 2019) at 25,030 (Hon David Lametti); see similarly House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,871 (Arif Virani); Senate Debates, 42-1, No 267 (26 February 2019) at 7,466 (Hon Pierre Dalphond).

  51. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 379 (6 February 2019) at 25,343 (Hon David Lametti).

  52. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 305 (18 June 2019) at 8,706 (Hon Pierre Dalphond).

  53. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 326 (26 September 2018) at 21,871 (David Tilson); see also House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,204 (Michael Cooper).

  54. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,204 (Michael Cooper); see similarly House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,209 (Cathay Wagantall); House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,213 (Sylvie Boucher); House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 379 (6 February 2019) at 25,347 (Michael Barrett).

  55. House of Commons Debates, 42-1, No 332 (4 October 2018) at 22,215 (John Brassard).

  56. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,716 (Hon Donna Dasko).

  57. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,716 (Hon Donna Dasko).

  58. Senate Debates, 42-1, No 275 (2 April 2019) at 7,716 (Hon Donna Dasko).

  59. See e.g. Pereira v Ramos, 2021 ONSC 1737 at para 11, Jain J; McBennett v Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, 57 RFL (8th) 1 at paras 74–5, Chappel J; Leinwand v Brown, 2021 ONSC 6866 at paras 15–6, Kraft J; JDM v SJC-M, 2021 NBQB 159 at para 88, Robichaud J.

  60. Barendregt v Grebliunas, supra n 3 at para 146, Karakatsanis J, for the majority.

  61. Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 at 43, Mandhane J (remarkably, this judgment recognises family violence as a new tort); see also KM v JR, 2022 ONSC 111 at para 53, Pazaratz J.

  62. JDM v SJC-M, supra n 59 at para 111, Robichaud J.

  63. Phillips v Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480 at para 48, Kurz J.

  64. Barendregt v Grebliunas, supra n 3 at para 146, Karakatsanis J, for the majority.

  65. S v A, 2021 ONSC 5976 at para 24, McGee J, aff’d (sub nom WS v PIA), 2021 ONCA 923, cited on this point in Epshtein v Verzberger-Epshtein, 2021 ONSC 7694 at para 110, Kurz J.

  66. MW v NLMW, 2021 BCSC 1273 at para 108, Veenstra J.

  67. MW v NLMW, supra n 66 at para 109, Veenstra J.

  68. DM v MM, 2022 SKQB 44 at para 98, Brown J.

  69. Phillips v Phillips, supra n 63 at para 49, Kurz J.

  70. S v A, supra n 65 at para 29, McGee J; Epshtein v Verzberger-Epshtein, supra n 65 at para 112, Kurz J.

  71. EMB v MFB, 2021 ONSC 4264 at para 69, Mandhane J.

  72. Barendregt v Grebliunas, supra n 3 at para 135, Karakatsanis J, for the majority [emphasis in original].

  73. Barendregt v Grebliunas, supra n 3 at para 135, Karakatsanis J, for the majority.

  74. KM v JR, supra n 61 at para 44, Pazaratz J.

  75. KM v JR, supra n 61 at para 44, Pazaratz J; see also at para 57 (“list of potentially relevant evidence gets longer, the further you read through the legislation”).

  76. KM v JR, supra n 61 at paras 49–51, Pazaratz J.

  77. KM v JR, supra n 61 at para 49, Pazaratz J [emphasis in original].

  78. See e.g. Hickey v Hickey, [1999] 2 SCR 518, 172 DRL (4th) 577.

  79. Interpretation Act, s 12.

  80. Miglin v Miglin, 2003 SCC 24, [2003] 1 SCR 303 at para 78, Bastarache and Arbour JJ.

  81. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 SCR 76 at para 7, McLachlin CJ.

  82. Arts 2, para 2, 18 CCP (Quebec); Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009, r 1–3(2); The King’s Bench Rules (Sask), r 1–3(4).

  83. Divorce Act, s 2(1) “family violence”.

  84. See e.g. Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99, r 18(14) (party entitled to costs from the other where having made an offer as good as or more favourable than what adjudication gave them).

References

  • Anitha, Sundari, and Aisha Gill. 2009. The Illusion of Protection? An Analysis of Forced Marriage Legislation and Policy in the UK. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 31(3): 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, Susan M. 2001. “We Told You So…”: Women’s Legal Groups and the Family Law Reform Act 1995. Australian Journal of Family Law 15(2): 129–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, Susan M. 2004. Is Feminist Law Reform Flawed? Abstentionists & Sceptics. Australian Feminist Law Journal 20: 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, Susan M. 2006. Evaluating Law Reform. University of Western Sydney Law Review 10(1): 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachand, Frédéric. 2015. Les principes généraux de la justice civile et le nouveau Code de procédure civile. McGill Law Journal 60(2): 447–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bala, Nicholas. 1986. Judicial Discretion and Family Law Reform in Canada. Canadian Journal of Family Law 5(1): 15–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, Nicholas. 1996. Spousal Abuse and Children of Divorce: A Differentiated Approach. Canadian Journal of Family Law 13(2): 215–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, Nicholas. 1999. A Report from Canada’s Gender War Zone: Reforming the Child-Related Provisions of the Divorce Act. Canadian Journal of Family Law 16(2): 163–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, Nicholas. 2015. Bringing Canada’s Divorce Act into the New Millennium: Enacting a Child-Focused Parenting Law. Queen’s Law Journal 40(2): 425–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, Nicholas. 2022. Shared Parenting in Canada: Not Presumed, But Increasingly Accepted. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 41(2): 155–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, Nicholas, Rachel Birnbaum, Karine Poitras, and Michael Saini. 2017. Shared Parenting in Canada: Increasing Use but Continued Controversy. Family Court Review 55(4): 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biland, Émilie. 2022. Family Law in Action: Divorce and Inequality in Quebec and France, trans. Annelies Fryberger and Miranda Richmond Mouillot. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Rachel, Nicholas Bala, and Lorne Bertrand. 2012. The Rise of Self-Representation in Canada’s Family Courts: The Complex Picture Revealed in Surveys of Judges. Lawyers and Litigants. Canadian Bar Review 91(1): 67–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolotin, Lisa. 2008. When Parents Fight: Alaska’s Presumption against Awarding Custody to Perpetrators of Domestic Violence. Alaska Law Review 25(2): 263–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourassa, Luce. 2021. Modifications à la Loi sur le divorce: guide pratique. Montreal: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B. 2001. Backlash and the Construction of Legal Knowledge: The Case of Child Custody Law. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 20(1): 141–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B. 2003a. Child Custody, Law, and Women’s Work. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B. 2003b. Walking the Line: Canada’s Response to Child Custody Law Reform Discourses. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 21(4): 397–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B. 2004a. Backlash against Feminism: Custody and Access Reform Debates of the Late 20th Century. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 16(2): 255–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B. 2004b. Demonizing Mothers: Fathers’ Rights Discourses in Child Custody Law Reform Processes. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 6(1): 52–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B. 2004c. Legal Regulation of Families in Changing Societies. In The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society, ed. Austin Sarat, 255–270. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B. 2013. Consent, Coercion and Shared Parenting: Ruffudeen-Coutts v Coutts. Canadian Journal of Family Law 28(2): 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Susan B., and Ruben Lindy. 2016. Violence against Women and the BC Family Law Act: Early Jurisprudence. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 35(2): 101–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Alan. 2022. The Legal Regulation of Cohabitation in Scotland: A Failed Attempt at Compromise. Houston Journal of International Law 44(2): 221–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, Naomi R. 1991. Civil Images of Battered Women: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Child Custody Decisions. Vanderbilt Law Review 44(5): 1041–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, Antonia E., Leigh Kallechey, C. Nicole Harlaar, Rashaan Ford, Edward F. Garrido, William R. Betts, and Sabine Maguire. 2018. Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Parenting: A Systematic Review. Child Abuse & Neglect 80(June): 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Lorenne M.G.. 1990. Wife Battery and Determinations of Custody and Access: A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings. Ottawa Law Review 22(3): 691–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Jonathan, and Nikki Gershbain. 2001. For the Sake of the Fathers? Child Custody Reform and the Perils of Maximum Contact. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 19(1): 121–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossman, Brenda, and Roxanne Mykitiuk. 1998. Reforming Child Custody and Access Law in Canada: A Discussion Paper. Canadian Journal of Family Law 15(1): 13–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Côté, Denyse, and Florina Gaborean. 2015. Nouvelles normativités de la famille: La garde partagée au Québec, en France et en Belgique. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 27(1): 22–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Côté, Isabelle, and Simon Lapierre. 2021. Pour une intégration du contrôle coercitif dans les pratiques d’intervention en matière de violence conjugale au Québec. Intervention 153: 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalphond, Pierre J., and Anushua Nag. 2019. Enfin une réforme de la Loi sur le divorce. La Revue du Barreau 78(1): 255–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, Lucy. 2009. Australia’s Family Law Amendment (Shared Responsibility) Act 2006: A Policy Critique. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 31(2): 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrcke, Ann. 1987. Limiting Judicial Discretion in Custody Proceedings on Divorce. Canadian Journal of Family Law 6(2): 211–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber, Daniel A., and Anne Joseph O’Connell. 2010. Introduction: A Brief Trajectory of Public Choice and Public Law. In Research Handbook on Public Choice and Public Law, ed. Daniel A. Farber and Anne Joseph O’Connell, 1–15. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • Fehlberg, Belinda, Bruce Smyth, Mavis Maclean, and Ceridwen Roberts. 2011. Legislating for Shared Time Parenting after Separation: A Research Review. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family 25(3): 318–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, Nora, and Mila Kingsbury. 2022. Parental Separation or Divorce, Shared Parenting Time Arrangements, and Child Well-Being: New Findings for Canada. Canadian Studies in Population 49(2): 75–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, Zoe. 2016. The Unintended Consequences of Rebuttable Presumptions to Determine Child Custody in Domestic Violence Cases. Family Law Quarterly 50(1): 173–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, Kathy Lynn. 2005. Deserving of Further Attention: A Case Streaming Approach to Child Custody and Access in the Context of Spousal Violence. Canadian Journal of Family Law 22(1): 57–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Judith G. 2005. Domestic Violence and the Danger of Joint Custody Presumptions. Northern Illinois University Law Review 25(3): 403–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieshofer, Tatiana. 2022. Lay Advisers in Family Law Settings: The Role and Quality of Advice Provided on Social Media. Social and Legal Studies 31(6): 941–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Rosie. 2015. (Re)inscribing the Heteronormative Family: Same-Sex Relationships and Parenting “After Equality.” In After Legal Equality: Family, Sex, Kinship, ed. Robert Leckey, 184–199. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, Joanna. 2021. Presuming the Status Quo? The Impact of the Statutory Presumption of Parental Involvement. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 43(2): 119–142.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Rosemary. 2002. Border Protection in Law’s Empire: Feminist Explorations of Access to Justice. Griffith Law Review 11(2): 263–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanyi, Julianna, and Régine. Tremblay. 2022. Measuring the Success of (Family) Law Reforms. In House Rules: Changing Families, Evolving Norms, and the Role of Law, ed. Erez Aloni and Régine Tremblay, 269–302. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, Peter G., Claire V. Crooks, Maureen Reid, Jennifer White, Danielle Pugh-Markie, and Linda Baker. 2018. Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases: The Development, Implementation, and Preliminary Evaluation of a Model US Programme. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 40(4): 496–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Michael P. 2008. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaganas, Felicity. 2018. Parental Involvement: A Discretionary Presumption. Legal Studies 38(4): 549–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Fiona. 2011. Enforcing a Parent/Child Relationship at All Cost—Supervised Access Orders in the Canadian Courts. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 49(2): 277–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirouack, Marie Christine. 2007. La jurisprudence relative à la garde: où en sommes-nous rendus? In Développements récents en droit familial, 2007, ed. Service de la formation continue, Barreau du Québec, 665–902. Cowansville, QC: Yvon Blais.

  • Kirouack, Marie Christine. 2019. La réforme de la Loi sur le divorce. Montreal: Yvon Blais.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koshan, Jennifer. 2018. Specialised Domestic Violence Courts in Canada and the United States: Key Factors in Prioritising Safety for Women and Children. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 40(4): 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koshan, Jennifer, Janet E. Mosher, and Wanda A. Wiegers. 2021a. Domestic Violence and Access to Justice: A Mapping of Relevant Laws, Policies and Justice System Components Across Canada. Canada: Canadian Legal Information Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koshan, Jennifer, Janet Mosher, and Wanda Weigers. 2021b. COVID-19, the Shadow Pandemic, and Access to Justice for Survivors of Domestic Violence. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 57(3): 739–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koshan Jennifer, Janet Mosher, and Wanda Wiegers. 2020. The Costs of Justice in Domestic Violence Cases: Mapping Canadian Law and Policy. In The Justice Crisis: The Cost and Value of Accessing Law, ed. Trevor C.W. Farrow and Lesley A. Jacobs, 149–170. Vancouver: UBC Press.

  • Laing, Marie. 1999. For the Sake of the Children: Preventing Reckless New Laws. Canadian Journal of Family Law 16(2): 229–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larcombe, Wendy. 2014. Limits of the Criminal Law for Preventing Sexual Violence. In Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture, ed. Nicola Henry and Anastasia Powell, 64–83. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, Robert. 2010. But What is Judicial Guidance? Debating Canadian Judgments on Children. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 32(4): 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, Robert. 2020. “Repugnant”: Homosexuality and Criminal Family Law. University of Toronto Law Journal 70(3): 225–244.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, Robert, and Yann Favier. 2016. Cohabitation’s Boundaries and the Confines of Tradition. Social and Legal Studies 25(5): 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leckey Robert, and Carol Rogerson. 2017. Marriage, Family, and Federal Concerns. In The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution, ed. Peter Oliver, Patrick Macklem and Nathalie Des Rosiers, 575–594. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Lemon, Nancy K.D. 2001. Statutes Creating Rebuttable Presumptions against Custody to Batterers: How Effective Are They? William Mitchell Law Review 28(2): 601–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lux, Glenda, and Sandy Gill. 2021. Identifying Coercive Control in Canadian Family Law: A Required Analysis in Determining the Best Interests of the Child. Family Court Review 59(4): 810–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, Katherine. 2019. Hong Kong’s Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill: Comparative Family Law Reform and Multidisciplinary Collaboration. Canadian Journal of Family Law 32(1): 77–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, Roderick A. 1987. On the Administration of Statutes. Queen’s Law Journal 12(3): 488–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, Roderick A., and Hoi Kong. 2006. Patchwork Law Reform: Your Idea is Good in Practice, But it Won’t Work in Theory. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 44(1): 11–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, Mavis, and Jacek Kurczewski. 2011. Making Family Law: A Socio Legal Account of Legislative Process in England and Wales, 1985 to 2010. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, Ruth M. 2008. Men’s Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas: Contexts, Dynamics, and Outcomes of Antifeminist Backlash. Feminist Criminology 3(1): 44–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, Donna, and Margaret Jackson. 2017. Family Violence and Evolving Judicial Roles: Judges as Equality Guardians in Family Law Cases. Canadian Journal of Family Law 30(1): 11–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, Joan S. 2021. Denial of Family Violence in Court: An Empirical Analysis and Path Forward For Family Law. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works, 16 March. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1536/. Accessed 17 July 2022.

  • Ministry of Justice. 2020. Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases: Implementation Plan. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossman, Mary Jane. 1994. Gender Equality, Family Law and Access to Justice. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 8(3): 357–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossman, Mary Jane, Natasha Bakht, Vanessa Gruben, and Karen Pearlston. 2019. Families and the Law: Cases and Commentary, 3rd ed. Concord, ON: Captus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. 2019. Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/. Accessed 17 July 2022.

  • Neilson, Linda. 1997. Spousal Abuse, Children and the Courts: The Case for Social Rather Than Legal Change. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 12(1): 101–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, Linda. 2000. Partner Abuse, Children and Statutory Change: Cautionary Comments on Women’s Access to Justice. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 18(1): 115–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, Linda C. 2003. Putting Revisions to the Divorce Act through a Family Violence Research Filter: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Canadian Journal of Family Law 20(1): 11–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, Linda C., and Susan B. Boyd. 2020. Interpreting the New Divorce Act, Rules of Statutory Interpretation & Senate Observations. The FREDA Centre, 8 March. http://dev.fredacentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Dr.-Linda-Neilson-and-Professor-Susan-Boyd-Interpreting-the-New-Divorce-Act-March-8-2020-Rules-of-Statutory-Interpretation-and-Senate-Observations.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2022.

  • Otis, Rodrigue, and Catherine Otis. 2007. La garde partagée dans la presse scientifique: Symphonie ou cacophonie. Canadian Journal of Family Law 23(2): 215–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquin-Boudreau, Amylie, Karine Poitras, and Nicholas Bala. 2022. Family Court Responses to Claims of Parental Alienation in Quebec. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 36(1): https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebac014.

  • Parkinson, Patrick. 2014. The Payoffs and Pitfalls of Laws That Encourage Shared Parenting: Lessons from the Australian Experience. Dalhousie Law Journal 37(1): 301–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, Julien D., and Marilyn A. Payne. 2022. Canadian Family Law, 9th ed. Toronto: Irwin Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, Rachelle, Martha Patterson, and Melissa Moyser. 2019. The Gender Wage Gap in Canada: 1998 to 2018. Statistics Canada, 7 October. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/75-004-m/75-004-m2019004-eng.pdf?st=MJqFiDlS. Accessed 17 July 2022.

  • Piché, Catherine. 2009. Procedural Proportionality: A Comparative Perspective. Revue de droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke 40(1&2): 551–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poitras, Karine, Rachel Birnbaum, Michael Saini, Nicholas Bala, and Francine Cyr. 2021. Family Dispute Resolution: Characteristics of Cases Resolved by Trial. Children and Youth Services Review 123: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105832.

  • Rathus, Zoe. 2020. A History of the Use of the Concept of Parental Alienation in the Australian Family Law System: Contradictions, Collisions and Their Consequences. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 42(1): 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reece, Helen. 2011. “Unpalatable Messages”? Feminist Analysis of United Kingdom Legislative Discourse on Stalking 1996–1997. Feminist Legal Studies 19(3): 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reece, Helen. 2015. Leaping without Looking. In After Legal Equality: Family, Sex, Kinship, ed. Robert Leckey, 115–133. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, Helen. 2002a. The “No Contact Mother”: Reconstructions of Motherhood in the Era of the “New Father.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 16(1): 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, Helen. 2002b. The Rise and Rise of Shared Parenting Laws: A Critical Reflection. Canadian Journal of Family Law 19(1): 75–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, Helen. 2012. Legislating to Promote Children’s Welfare and the Quest for Certainty. Child and Family Law Quarterly 24(2): 158–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, Helen, and Susan B. Boyd. 2004. Reforming Custody Laws: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 18(2): 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Cassandra. 2022. Creating a System for All Parents: Rethinking Procedural and Evidentiary Rules in Proceedings with Self-Represented Litigants. Dalhousie Law Journal 45(1): 227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, Carol. 2004. The Canadian Law of Spousal Support. Family Law Quarterly 38(1): 69–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, Carol. 2012. Spousal Support Agreements and the Legacy of Miglin. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 31(1): 13–70.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rosnes, Melanie. 1997. The Invisibility of Male Violence in Canadian Child Custody and Access Decision-Making. Canadian Journal of Family Law 14(1): 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, Elizabeth, and Susan B. Boyd. 2020. Penalizing Women’s Fear: Intimate Partner Violence and Parental Alienation in Canadian Child Custody Cases. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 42(1): 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Carol. 1989. Feminism and the Power of Law. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. 1998. For the Sake of the Children. Parliament of Canada.

  • Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. 2019. Observations to the Thirty-Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-78). https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/LCJC/reports/reportBillC-78-revised_e.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2022.

  • Sullivan, Ruth. 2022. The Construction of Statutes, 7th ed. Toronto: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Rollie. 2022. What to Take from Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunas. The Lawyer’s Daily. 27 May.

  • Wallbank, Julie. 2007. Getting Tough on Mothers: Regulating Contact and Residence. Feminist Legal Studies 15(2): 189–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstock, Lois Shereen. 2014. Safe Havens or Dangerous Waters? A Phenomenological Study of Abused Women’s Experiences in the Family Courts of Ontario. PhD thesis, York University.

  • Wong, S., and R. Cain. 2019. The Impact of Cuts in Legal Aid Funding of Private Family Law Cases. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 41(1): 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Claire. 2013. Torture at Home: Borrowing from the Torture Convention to Define Domestic Violence. Hastings Women’s Law Journal 24(2): 457–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaccour, Suzanne. 2018. Parental Alienation in Quebec Custody Litigation. Les Cahiers de Droit 59(4): 1073–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the excellent research assistance of Aidan Carpio-Lanthier, Félix-Antoine Lestage, and Amélia Souffrant. For comments on earlier versions, I am indebted to Nicholas Bala, Susan Boyd, Aidan Carpio-Lanthier, Valérie Costanzo, Daniel Del Gobbo, Joshua Ginter, Félix-Antoine Lestage, Mary Jane Mossman, Laurence Ricard, and the external reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, McGill University, 3644 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada

    Robert Leckey

Authors
  1. Robert Leckey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Leckey.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The citation of the references Koshan et al. 2021 and Neilson and Boyd 2020 are corrected.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leckey, R. Compromise on Parenting and Family Violence? Reforms to Canada’s Divorce Act. Fem Leg Stud 32, 3–24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-023-09522-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-023-09522-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation