The Family Way En famille - Canadian Children`s Rights Council

T H E
C A N A D I A N
B A R
A S S O C I AT I O N
/
L’ A S S O C I AT I O N
D U
B A R R E A U
C A N A D I E N
The Family Way
En famille
June/Juin 2000
CBA
National Family Law Section/Section nationale du droit de la famille de l’ABC
Legal Aid: Cross-Country Checkup
By Julia E. Cornish
Sealy Cornish O’Neill
Legal aid is meant to ensure access to justice.
In its September 1999 decision in New
Brunswick v. G (J), the Supreme Court of
Canada confirmed that Legal Aid’s refusal to
provide counsel to G infringed her rights under
s. 7 of the Charter. The court found that G’s
right to security of the person required the
province to ensure she had representation in the
child protection proceeding which had been
initiated against her.
According to the court, where a parent has not
been able to secure legal aid, wants a lawyer
and cannot afford one, the judge must consider
“the seriousness of the interests at stake, the
complexity of the proceedings and the
capacities of the parent. The judge should also
bear in mind his or her ability to assist the
parent within the limits of the judicial role.”
Ultimately, it is the state’s responsibility to
ensure representation where a parent risks
losing a child through a government process.
Unfortunately, this decision has failed to ensure
access to legal aid in family law cases
throughout Canada, according to a recent
survey done through provincial CBA Family
Law Section Chairs. Because legal aid is an
area of provincial responsibility, access to
family law representation for Canada’s poor is
very much a matter of where you live.
Interestingly, our Northern Territories provide a
dramatic example of this contrast. In the
Yukon, legal aid family law coverage is
restricted to child protection proceedings and,
in the case of matrimonial matters, to interim
custody and interim maintenance. If counsel
can obtain a property settlement through
negotiation, there is no additional
compensation, since property matters are not
PRÉCIS
L’aide juridique, d’un océan à l’autre
L’aide juridique a pour but d’assurer l’accès à la
justice. Dans la cause Nouveau-Brunswick c. G., la
Cour suprême du Canada avait statué en septembre
1999 que le refus de l’Aide juridique du NouveauBrunswick de fournir un conseiller juridique à une
mère dans une affaire de garde d’enfants constituait
une violation de ses droits en vertu de l’article 7 de
la Charte des droits et libertés.
Quand un parent n’a pu obtenir les services de l’aide
juridique, qu’il veut les services d’une avocate, d’un
avocat, et n’a pas les moyens de les payer, la Cour
estime que la ou le juge doit tenir compte « de la
gravité des intérêts en jeu, la complexité de l’instance
et les capacités du parent. Le juge doit également
garder à l’esprit que, dans les limites de sa fonction
juridictionnelle, il peut aider le parent. » En fin de
compte, cependant, l’État a la responsabilité
d’assurer que le parent soit représenté s’il risque de
perdre la garde de son enfant à cause de
l’application d’une procédure gouvernementale.
Malheureusement, un sondage réalisé par la Section
nationale du droit de la famille de l’ABC démontre
que cette décision n’a pas eu pour effet de garantir
un accès pancanadien à l’aide juridique dans les
causes de droit familial. L’aide juridique relevant des
provinces, la qualité de l’accès varie de l’une à
l’autre.
Les territoires illustrent bien cette situation.
Contrairement au Yukon où l’aide juridique est limitée
à certaines questions de protection et de garde
provisoire des enfants et où l’on arrête de payer les
avocats et les avocates si le budget est épuisé avant
suite à la page 10
covered under the Legal Aid Tariff. Although
the Legal Aid year-end is March 31, by early
February 2000, the program was already over
budget and had stopped paying lawyers’
accounts.
By contrast, legal aid in the Northwest
Territories and Nunavut funds most
matrimonial causes. There is apparently no
prescribed income level which would
automatically disqualify an individual from
receiving legal aid, and financial assessments
are done on a case-by-case basis. Tariffs range
from $40 per hour for an articling student to
$102 per hour for a lawyer with 11 years or
more at the Bar.
However, there is a significant shortage of
lawyers willing to undertake legal aid files. In
fact, there are no lawyers in the private sector
in Nunavut who will take family law cases.
Legal Aid has in-house counsel in a number of
communities who do some family law, but
their time is often monopolized with criminal
matters. As of the end of January, there were
more than 130 family law cases to be assigned
to lawyers, some of which had been in the
system since May 1999.
Alberta is also experiencing a shortage of legal
aid lawyers to do civil legal aid, which may
have something to do with the current hourly
rate of $61. Rural areas are most significantly
affected, since Legal Aid will not pay travel
time or mileage from Edmonton or Calgary to
encourage lawyers to service more remote
areas.
In Ontario, the number of family certificates
issued has increased by over 100% since 1997.
In fact, in 1999, Legal Aid issued over 28,000
family law certificates. Legal Aid has
expanded family law coverage, including
coverage for such issues as variation of support
(in some circumstances), variations of custody
in non-emergency cases, and property issues
such as pension and RRSP divisions.
continued on page 10
Message from the Chair
Committee mirrored those made by the Family
Law Section.
National Family Section Active in
Custody and Access Reform
The Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, tabled
the government’s response to the Joint
Parliamentary Report on May 10, 1999. Her
response outlined the government’s strategy for
reform:
By Eugene Raponi
Waddell Raponi
the CBA, attended before the Parliamentary
Committee.
In November 1999, the Family Law Section
wrote to the Justice Minister responding to the
government’s strategy for the reform of the
Divorce Act following the report of the Special
Joint Committee on child custody and access.
The CBA recommendations focused on retaining
the “best interests” test for children and urged
the Committee not to recommend legislative
reform based on lobbying by special interest
groups. Rather than dealing with the rights of
mothers or fathers, the CBA recommended that
any legislative reform should refer to the
responsibilities of parents and enumerate specific
factors that the courts should consider in
determining the best interests of children.
Consistent with that focus, the CBA
recommended against establishing either a
primary caregiver presumption or a presumption
of joint custody.
While the Section agreed with much of the
government’s response, and considers that
changes to the Divorce Act are appropriate given
the evolving nature of family law and of
Canadian families, we have urged that changes
not be made hastily in response to the demands
of vocal interest groups.
The Section supported the government in its
plan to undertake any amendments to the
legislation in consultation with the provinces and
territories. It was our concern that changes in
federal legislation without corresponding
changes in provincial and territorial
legislation would lead to forum-shopping and
add to the adversarial climate that the reforms
would presumably hope to avoid.
Although we recommended proceeding carefully
with legislative reform, we urged the
government to move quickly to develop social
and educational programs that would help
divorcing families deal with the consequences of
separation. We felt that increased funding should
also be provided for civil Legal Aid. The
funding of practical programs to assist the
children of divorcing families was, in our view,
the best way for the government to keep its
commitment to children and families made in
the last Throne Speech.
The Special Joint Committee of the Senate and
the House of Commons was created in 1997 to
examine and analyze issues relating to custody
and access arrangements after separation and
divorce. The Committee invited submissions and
held hearings in Ottawa and in various centres
across Canada throughout much of 1998.
The Family Law Section struck a committee to
prepare written submissions on behalf of the
Canadian Bar Association to present to the Joint
Committee. In May 1998, Heather McKay
(then-Chair of the Section), Ruth Mesbur (since
appointed to the Ontario Superior Court) and
Eugene Raponi (current Chair of the Section)
along with John Hoyles, Executive Director of
2
Additionally, the Family Law Section
recommended that the federal government
immediately dedicate resources for a wide range
of services to lessen the traumatic effects of
parental separation on children.
The Joint Parliamentary Committee released its
report, “For the Sake of the Children,” in
December 1998. That report contained 48
recommendations which addressed a variety of
issues relating to children and families. Many of
the important recommendations made by the
• To shift the focus of the family law system
away from parental rights and concepts that
tended to promote discussions about
“ownership” of a child, to parental
responsibilities and principles that emphasized
the best interests of the child.
• To replace existing terms and concepts like
“custody” and “access” with new, clearly
defined language, although the government did
not endorse any specific terminology in its
response.
• To support the development of co-operative
approaches to custody and access issues that
are less adversarial and more effective in
dealing with the needs of children and families.
• To develop a framework for managing disputes
between parents that recognizes and responds
to different levels of conflicts.
The government is committed to working with
the provinces and territories to proceed with the
reform. The government is also committed to
seeking input from various sources, including
the CBA. The Family Law Section will continue
its active involvement in this process and
welcomes input from its members to assist in
that process.
PRÉCIS
Garde et droit de visite des enfants : la Section intervient
La Section du droit de la famille a écrit au ministre de
la Justice en novembre 1999 en réponse au rapport du
Comité mixte spécial sur la garde et le droit de visite
des enfants.
divorce à s’entendre sur les conditions de séparation.
L’aide juridique civile devrait par ailleurs être financée
davantage, ainsi que les programmes d’assistance
pratique aux enfants du divorce.
Tout en jugeant opportunes les modifications
apportées à la Loi sur le divorce étant donné l’évolution
du droit familial et des familles canadiennes, la Section
a conseillé au gouvernement de ne pas procéder avec
trop de hâte simplement parce que des groupes
d’intérêts exercent des pressions.
Le Comité mixte spécial du Sénat et de la Chambre
des communes sur la garde et le droit de visite des
enfants avait été créé en 1997. L’année suivante, la
Section du droit de la famille présenta au comité un
mémoire au nom de l’Association du Barreau
canadien. Plutôt que de traiter des droits des pères et
mères, l’ABC a insisté pour que la loi fasse référence
aux responsabilités des parents, et qu’elle énumère les
facteurs à considérer par la cour dans sa détermination
des meilleurs intérêts des enfants.
La Section applaudit l’intention de modifier la Loi en
consultation avec les provinces et territoires. Des
amendements sans modifications correspondantes sur
le plan provincial et territorial risqueraient de favoriser
le « forum-shopping » et renforcer le climat
accusatoire que les réformes cherchent à éviter.
Même si la Section propose la prudence législative,
elle incite le gouvernement à développer plus
rapidement des programmes sociaux et éducatifs
ayant pour but d’aider les familles en situation de
Dans son rapport intitulé Pour l’amour des enfants, le
Comité mixte spécial sur la garde et le droit de visite
des enfants avait formulé 48 recommandations, dont
plusieurs s’inspiraient des propositions de la Section
du droit de la famille. La ministre Anne McLellan a
déposé la réponse gouvernementale en mai 1999 (voir
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/fr/ps/dgve/index.html).
CBA National Family Law Section
National Section Officers/
Dirigeants et dirigeantes de la
section nationale
Chair/Président
Eugene Raponi
Waddell Raponi
Tel/Tél. : (250) 385-4311 ext 116
Fax/Téléc. : (250) 385-2012
[email protected]
Vice-Chair/Vice-présidente
Jennifer A Cooper
Deeley Fabbri Sellen
Tel/Tél. : (204) 949-1710 ext 233
Fax/Téléc. : (204) 956-4457
[email protected]
Treasurer/Trésorière
Carla M Courtenay
Carla Courtenay Law Office
Tel/Tél. : (604) 682-2200
Fax/Téléc. : (604) 682-2246
[email protected]
Secretary/Secrétaire
Julia E Cornish
Sealy Cornish O'Neill
Tel/Tél. : (902) 466-2500
Fax/Téléc. : (902) 463-0500
[email protected]
Past Chair/Président sortant
Ronald J Profit
Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy
Tel/Tél. : (902) 629-3908
Fax/Téléc. : (902) 566-2639
[email protected]
Member-at-Large/Membre
Lonny L Balbi
Balbi & Company
Tel/Tél. : (403) 269-7300
Fax/Téléc. : (403) 265-9790
[email protected]
Staff Liaison/Personne ressource
Jennifer Bell
CBA/ABC
Tel/Tél. : (613) 237-2925
Fax/Téléc. : (613) 237-0185
[email protected]
Correction
The last issue incorrectly stated Angela
Kerr’s place of employment. Please note
that Ms. Kerr works as the Acting
Manager with the Maintenance
Enforcement Program in Edmonton.
Commentaire
La médiation ne remplace pas le
conseil juridique indépendant
Je prends connaissance d’un encart paru dans
la revue The Family Way/En famille, à la page
12, édition de juillet 1999, intitulé « Tendances
à la bureaucratisation » et je désirerais vous
soumettre certains commentaires et précisions
qui pourraient être utiles pour vos lecteurs et
ce, quant à la section Québec seulement.
Séance d’information
L’Assemblée nationale du Québec adoptait le
13 juin 1997 et sanctionnait le 19 juin 1997 la
« Loi instituant au Code de procédure civile la
médiation préalable en matière familiale et
modifiant d’autres dispositions de ce code ».
Cette loi introduit des mesures visant
principalement à favoriser la médiation dans
les procédures en matière familiale et instaure,
sous réserve de certaines exceptions propres à
la situation particulière des parties, l’exigence
d’une participation à une séance d’information
sur la médiation préalablement à l’audition de
toute demande mettant en jeu les intérêts de
parents et d’un ou de plusieurs de leurs
enfants, dès que la demande est contestée sur
des questions relatives à la garde des enfants,
aux aliments dûs à un parent ou aux enfants ou
au patrimoine familial et aux autres droits
patrimoniaux résultant du mariage.
Il faut préciser que cette exigence ne
s’applique donc qu’aux demandes avec enfants
et dans la mesure où il existe un différend, ce
qui exclut les situations où les parties déposent
une entente pour valoir à titre de mesures
provisoires.
D’autre part, cette obligation à la séance
d’information est cependant mitigée par le fait
que l’une ou l’autre des parties peut être
dispensée pour un motif sérieux lié entre
autres au déséquilibre des forces en présence, à
la capacité ou à l’état physique ou psychique
d’une partie ou encore à la distance importante
séparant leurs résidences. Le motif sérieux doit
être déclaré à un médiateur qui recueillera
cette déclaration et remettra son rapport.
De plus, le tribunal conserve toujours le
pouvoir d’émettre une ordonnance utile à la
sauvegarde des droits des parties ou des
enfants pour le temps d’une médiation ou pour
toute autre période selon les circonstances.
Ainsi, dans de telles situations, le tribunal peut
donc prononcer des ordonnances intérimaires,
de sauvegarde et de mesures provisoires.
Section nationale du droit de la famille de l’ABC
Avis juridique indépendant
Il est très important et nécessaire pour la
protection des droits de tous les membres de la
famille, que les parents en médiation soient
sensibilisés, invités et encouragés à consulter
un procureur indépendant pendant et après la
médiation afin que toutes décisions soient
prises de façon libre, volontaire, sans abus
d’influence et en pleine connaissance de cause.
Le médiateur doit encourager les parties à
obtenir un avis professionnel indépendant de
nature juridique, financière, thérapeutique ou
tout autre avis professionnel pertinent. Ainsi je
suis en parfait accord avec le principe que la
médiation utilisée comme moyen de résolution
extrajudiciaire d’un litige ne doit pas
restreindre, empêcher ou remplacer tout
service de conseil juridique indépendant.
Les avocats et avocates en droit de la famille
doivent dénoncer à leur ordre toute irrégularité
ou manquement commis par un médiateur
dans l’exercice de sa fonction.
Nous devons être vigilants tout en collaborant
et respectant d’autre part le choix des parents
qui optent pour un mode de résolution
extrajudiciaire de leur litige et intervenir dans
un souci d’assurer une meilleure protection ou
une information de leurs droits afin de
convenir d’une entente en toute connaissance.
Les parties devraient-elles participer à une
séance individuelle d’information juridique?
Les avocats et avocates en droit de la famille
devraient-ils développer des services de
consultation adaptés aux parties qui choisissent
la médiation?
Les médiateurs devraient-ils exiger la
consultation juridique ou du moins attester du
respect de l’invitation faite aux parties à la
consultation? Dans la multidisciplinarité,
comment développer et maintenir un climat de
confiance entre les divers professionnels,
juristes et non juristes?
Ces questions pourraient faire l’objet de
commentaires et d’échanges ultérieurs.
J’apprécierais recevoir toute suggestion et
commentaires d’avocats et avocates en droit de
la famille soucieux d’améliorer et de corriger
toute irrégularité dans l’application de la
médiation familiale au Québec.
J’invite donc vos lecteurs à me communiquer
leurs commentaires.
Pierre Valin, avocat et médiateur
Pierre Valin & Associés
3
How Much and For How Long?
$pousal $upport Post-Bracklow
By Eugene Raponi and Danine Geronazzo
Waddell Raponi, Victoria, B.C.
In the last edition of our newsletter we reported
on the Bracklow decision handed down by the
Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. In Bracklow
v. Bracklow, [1999] S.C.J. No. 14, the Supreme
Court extended spousal support to an ill wife
following a relatively short, non-traditional
relationship where her illness permanently
impaired her income-earning capacity.
The Supreme Court did not deal with the
amount or duration of spousal support that was
to be paid, however. The court sent the matter
back to the British Columbia Supreme Court
for rehearing.
The case was reheard in November 1999 and a
decision was rendered on December 24, by
Madam Justice Daphne Smith.
Ms. Bracklow was ill at the start of the
relationship, and had been for the last three
years of the marriage. By the time of the
original trial, she was totally disabled and was
not expected to be able to resume work. The
wife’s claim for spousal support was
“non-compensatory;” it was not based on
economic disadvantage caused by the marriage.
The court found that the financial consequences
of the marriage breakdown were much different
for Ms. Bracklow than for Mr. Bracklow; she
was living very modestly, unable to provide for
her retirement while Mr. Bracklow, now
remarried, was flourishing.
For a short period after the parties’ separation,
Mr. Bracklow had made voluntary support
payments of $200 per month. When he ceased
making those payments, Ms. Bracklow
commenced an action pursuant to the Family
Relations Act. She obtained an order for interim
monthly support of $275 commencing August
15, 1993. On May 15, 1994, that amount
increased to $400 monthly; Mr. Bracklow had
offered to pay the new amount.
On appeal, the court held that Ms. Bracklow
was not entitled to spousal support. Mr.
Bracklow stopped making payments. The
Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal
and confirmed Ms. Bracklow’s entitlement to
support.
Rehearing before the B.C. Supreme Court
In Keller v. Black, [2000] O.J. No.79 (Ont. Sup.
Ct), Justice Quinn awarded a permanent support
order of $1,200 per month to a wife whose ill
health impaired her income-earning capacity.
The effect of the order was to equalize the
parties’ income.
parties’ marriage, including the economic
interdependencies which fluctuated over time.
She noted that the marriage breakdown had
different financial consequences for each party,
and described her award as “necessary” for Ms.
Bracklow and fair to Mr. Bracklow.
In Dediluke v. Dediluke (Guardian ad litem of)
[2000] B.C.J. No 590 (B.C.S.C.), the court
considered the plaintiff wife’s application for
spousal support where both husband and wife
were suffering ill health throughout a long-term
marriage.
Justice Smith awarded spousal support in the
amount of $400 per month commencing March
15, 1995 for 5 years ending February 15, 2000.
In making the fixed-term award, he wrote:
Following a division of the assets, the mentally
ill husband retained $1.8 million in assets, the
physically ill wife received $942,000. In
declining to make an award for spousal support,
Justice Sinclair Prowse noted that there is no
economic hardship to be relieved and no basis
for an award of spousal support, implicitly
rejecting an “equalizing” approach.
“Cases that involve entitlement based on
non-compensatory grounds, with an ongoing
need by the recipient and an ability to pay by
the payor, are the most difficult to determine,
particularly where the relationship and/or
marriage is relatively short. Unless a time limit
is imposed upon an award for spousal support
in a relatively short marriage, the redistributive
paradigm could develop into an entitlement
flowing from the marriage per se.”
Justice Smith clearly left open the possibility of
indefinite term spousal support awards for
longer relationships. She attempted to limit the
scope for variation of her order, but
acknowledged that “unforeseen events,” such as
Ms. Bracklow no longer qualifying for
disability pension or Mr. Bracklow losing his
employment, might warrant a review of the
order.
Application of Bracklow decision
In British Columbia, an early decision of the
Court of Appeal appears to narrow the scope of
Bracklow to cases of ongoing disability on the
part of a spouse. In Liedtke v. Liedtke, [1999]
B.C.C.A. 0364, counsel for the husband
successfully distinguished Bracklow as
applying only in cases where the recipient
spouse was obviously disabled on a continuing
basis.
In an Alberta case, Kerr v. Kerr, [1999] A.J.
No. 1546 (Alta Q.B.), the court followed
Bracklow and awarded $700 per month spousal
support indefinitely to a 44-year-old wife
suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. However, the
parties had been married for 25 years in a
traditional marriage. Judge Nash stated: “I
decline to place a time limit on this order
because, on the facts of this case, it is probable
that Ms. Kerr will not be able to work in the
future and Mr. Kerr will have to continue to
support her.” This decision is under appeal.
Joint CBA/ABA
Cruise a Success!
By Lonny Balbi
Balbi & Company
The Canadian Bar Association National
Family Law Section and the American Bar
Association National Family Law Section
recently sponsored a CLE for family law
lawyers on board a cruise ship through the
Caribbean.
The group left Miami on April 9, 2000 for a
week, visiting the Cayman Islands, Jamaica,
and the Bahamas. These are the real hot
spots of family law! The sun was beautiful,
the air moist, the scenery spectacular and
the camaraderie warm.
A cruise agenda offered the ideal CLE
scenario: lots of time to meet your
colleagues, learn new ideas and take time
for reflection, all the while seeing some of
the most beautiful places in the world. This
is a concept that works!
The National Section has plans underway for
the next cruise in early 2001. Put this on
your personal and professional diary to help
keep you warm through next winter!
Justice Smith reviewed the details of the
4
CBA National Family Law Section
PRÉCIS
Who Are the Parents of This Child Anyway?
La pension alimentaire
après l’arrêt Bracklow
By Jennifer A. Cooper, Q.C.
New Reproductive Technologies Committee
National Family Law Section
Rappelons que la Cour suprême a, dans l’arrêt
Bracklow c. Bracklow, étendu le droit à la pension
alimentaire à l’ex-conjointe malade, même à l’issue
d’une relation maritale relativement courte lorsque
la maladie a entraîné une incapacité permanente à
gagner sa vie chez la personne qui réclame la
pension alimentaire.
La Cour n’a cependant pas précisé la durée, ni le
montant de ce type de pension alimentaire et la
question a été renvoyée devant la Cour suprême de
la Colombie-Britannique pour une nouvelle audition,
tenue le 24 décembre dernier.
Voici quelles furent les conclusions de la juge
Daphne Smith :
Après avoir examiné la situation des parties et les
particularités de leur mariage, Madame la juge
Smith a conclu que la rupture du mariage avait eu
des conséquences financières différentes pour
chacune des parties et a qualifié de « nécessaire »
pour Mme Bracklow et équitable pour le débiteur
alimentaire, M. Bracklow, le montant de la pension
alimentaire. Ce dernier a été sommé de verser la
somme mensuelle de 400 $ à compter du
15 mars 1995, et ce, pendant cinq ans jusqu’au
15 février 2000.
La juge a ainsi motivé sa décision : les causes
portant sur le droit à une pension alimentaire
fondée sur des motifs autres que le
dédommagement économique pour les années de
mariage, et mettant en jeu un créancier alimentaire
invalide et un débiteur en mesure de payer, sont
extrêmement difficiles à juger surtout lorsqu’elles
portent sur des relations ou un mariage de courte
durée. À moins d’imposer une limite de temps fixe
pour le versement de la pension alimentaire, on
pourrait extrapoler de ce principe en affirmant que
le mariage entraîne en soi un droit systématique à
la pension.
La juge Smith a donc clairement laissé la porte
ouverte à la possibilité d’accorder une pension
alimentaire illimitée dans le temps en cas de
relations maritales de longue durée en ajoutant
l’importance des « événements imprévus » sur la
possibilité de faire réviser l’ordonnance, par
exemple, la perte du statut d’invalide chez la
personne réclamant une pension ou la perte
d’emploi chez le débiteur alimentaire.
As a practising family lawyer, you may have
encountered some of the legal difficulties that
can arise when children are conceived as a
result of medically assisted procreation or
surrogacy arrangements. Our custody/access
laws, child support laws, and even our laws
establishing eligibility under succession and
wills, have not kept pace with medical
advances and societal changes.
The federal government has been studying the
issue for many years, including conducting a
Royal Commission on Reproductive
Technologies and producing a White Paper.
The CBA has previously presented several
thoughtful and comprehensive submissions on
government initiatives. Recently, the federal
government produced an Overview Paper and a
Discussion Workbook, both designed to
canvass the views of the major stakeholders
prior to taking legislative action.
These papers set out the federal government’s
intention to establish a legislative framework
for either prohibiting or regulating reproductive
and genetic technologies. If prohibited outright,
the activity would be subject to criminal law
sanctions, including fines and imprisonment. If
the activity is to be regulated, persons
providing such controlled activities would have
to apply for a license and be governed by
specific regulations.
The National Family Law Section, in
partnership with the National Health Law
Section, prepared a submission to the federal
government on behalf of the CBA, responding
to the issues raised in these papers. Our
submission points out that the complex issues of
parentage do not appear to be addressed in the
intended legislative initiative. We acknowledge
that there may well be federal/provincial/
territorial constitutional considerations with
respect to some of the issues, but nevertheless
encourage the federal government to take a
leadership role in updating our laws in this area.
In our submission, we also note that the
criminal law is a blunt and inflexible
instrument, and call upon the government to
articulate more clearly the particular behaviours
that are sufficiently egregious to warrant such
serious intervention. We recommend that
surrogacy arrangements be regulated and
assimilated as far as possible into the adoption
model of law. Finally, we recommend that the
proposed regulatory body be autonomous from
Health Canada, have a high profile, and be able
to set its own priorities independently from the
federal government.
This is an emerging area of law and legislative
change which we are monitoring on behalf of
our members. If you are interested in receiving
a full copy of our submission, contact Nickie
Cassidy at (613) 237-2925, 1-800-267-8860 or
[email protected]. Please send your ideas and
comments regarding reproductive technologies
to Jennifer Cooper: [email protected].
PRÉCIS
Les techniques de reproduction : qui sont les véritables parents?
Lorsque l’on exerce en droit de la famille, il faut
s’attendre à rencontrer certaines difficultés juridiques
dans le cas des enfants qui sont le fruit d’une
procréation artificielle ou d’une entente de maternité
par substitution. Nos lois en matière de garde et de
droit de visite et d’autres lois relatives aux pensions
alimentaires n’ont pas encore été remaniées en
fonction des progrès de la médecine et de nos
bouleversements sociaux.
Le gouvernement fédéral examine cette question
depuis de nombreuses années, il a d’ailleurs nommé
une Commission royale sur les techniques de
reproduction dont le Livre blanc a été analysé en
profondeur par l’ABC.
réglementer les techniques de reproduction et de
génétique. Dans l’éventualité d’une interdiction, toute
activité dans ce domaine serait passible de sanctions
criminelles. Tandis que si l’activité était autorisée et
réglementée, les personnes chargées de procéder à
ces traitements devraient obtenir au préalable une
licence et être régies par des règlements spécifiques.
Il s’agit là d’un secteur du droit en plein essor et dont
nous surveillerons de près l’évolution au nom de nos
membres. Si vous désirez recevoir par courriel un
exemplaire intégral de notre mémoire, veuillez vous
adresser à Joan Bercovitch, directrice principale,
Affaires juridiques et gouvernementales, au
(613) 237-2925, sans frais au 1-800-267-8860 ou
par courriel à [email protected].
Dans deux textes qu’il vient de publier, le fédéral
propose d’adopter une loi-cadre pour interdire ou
Section nationale du droit de la famille de l’ABC
5
Child Support Guidelines
B.C. v. Ontario:
Provincial Comparison on Section 9
Alberta Application
Three principal issues emerge from the cases in
the interpretation and application of s. 9. These
are:
pay support to the other, even where her/his
income greatly exceeds that of the other parent.
It is not clear from these cases how the B.C.
courts will approach cases of absolute equality
of time: which parent gets to be the recipient of
50% of the table amount?
• calculating the 40%,
• calculating the support where s. 9 applies, and
• discretion not to apply s. 9.
Perhaps these issues are best illustrated by the
examples in the following table, where the
amount of time spent with the father is 45%:
Calculating the 40%
Mom table
amount
By Bob Gill
Clay & Company, Victoria
Courts in British Columbia continue to resist
awarding “away” time such as time in school,
sleeping or daycare to the non-custodial parent,
e.g., de Goude v. de Goude, [1999] B.C.J. No.
330 (S.C. Master) (Q.L.)).
Calculation of Award
The typical approach in B.C. appears, for
example, in Baddeley v. Baddeley, [1999] B.C.J.
No. 2835 (S.C.) (Q.L.) and McKerracher v.
McKerracher (29 September 1997) Kamloops
011150 (B.C.S.C. Master). In these cases the
court has simply reduced the support payable to
the custodial parent by the percentage of time
that the child is with the access parent. No
further attempt to address the increased costs of
shared custody under s. 9(b) is made under this
approach.
By contrast, in the “Colorado” approach
adopted in Ontario in Hunter v. Hunter (1998),
37 R.F.L. (4th) 260 (Ont. Gen. Div), each
parent’s liability under the table is reduced by
the percentage of time the child is with that
parent. The two amounts are then offset, with a
50% gross-up for the increased costs of shared
custody. The Hunter approach results in more
generous awards to the spouse with the lower
income where there are significant income
disparities. The approach also appears neutral as
to whether the recipient has the children more
or less than 50% of the time: the higher-income
spouse will pay the other.
The approach in Baddeley and McKerracher
probably results in higher payments to the
“primary” custodial spouse in cases where
incomes are closer together. Further, under this
approach, the parent with the children more
than 50% of the time will never be required to
6
Dad table
amount
In B.C.
Dad pays:
In Ont.
Dad pays:
$ 100.00 $ 1,000.00
$ 800.00
$ 300.00
$ 600.00
$ 500.00
$ 500.00
$ 600.00
$ 300.00
$ 800.00
$ 100.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 550.00
$ 440.00
$ 330.00
$ 275.00
$ 165.00
$ 55.00
$ 757.50
$ 457.50
$ 157.50
$ 7.50
$ (292.50)
$ (592.50)
The Hunter approach does not appear to have
been applied in British Columbia.
Discretion Not to Apply Section 9
On a number of occasions, courts have declined
to depart from the Guidelines amount in cases
where there is a disparity in income. See, for
example, Creighton v. Creighton (13 August
1997) Vancouver D105532 (S.C. Master) and
Green v. Green, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1994 (S.C.)
(Q.L.).
In Metzner v. Metzner (1999), 175 D.L.R. (4th)
587 (B.C.C.A.), the trial judge declined to make
an adjustment under s. 9 of the Guidelines
given the great disparity of income. On appeal,
in dissent, Justice Rowles remarked that
applying s. 9 of the Guidelines, appeared to be
mandatory. However, she felt that on the
evidence, the costs of the paying parent were
not appreciably increased by the fact that the
child spent about 40% of his time with that
parent. For that reason, she would have left
undisturbed the trial judge’s order which
awarded the Guidelines amount.
By Pierre R. Boileau
Miller Boileau Family Law Group,
Edmonton
When the Guidelines were first
introduced, the test adopted in Alberta to
determine whether or not s. 9(a) was
invoked was to decide if the 40% actually
occurred.
The Alberta courts have now rejected the
approach of starting with the assumption
that the custodial parent has the children
100% of the time. Rather, the court looks
at the actual time of physical custody or
responsibility for the child. The court
therefore rejects any comparisons with the
other parent. It would, however, appear
that a number of lawyers have not
followed the progress of the courts. They
appear to focus on the outdated methods
to determine if s. 9 applies.
We must now focus on how to treat time
in which the child is in third-party care
(e.g., school and daycare). When acting
for a party who is claiming that s. 9
should apply to a particular situation, the
evidence must be clear enough to
determine if the client has the physical
custody or has the responsibility for the
child for that specific time period.
The largest concern, however, is that the
evidence often is not detailed enough for
the courts to consider ss. 9(b) and (c). As
a result, the decisions tend to focus too
much on the table amounts. This may
result in inequity where there is a large
disparity in incomes. Without properly
considering all the evidence as reflected
in s. 9, it is doubtful that the objectives of
the Guidelines and of s. 26.1 of the
Divorce Act are being met.
Counsel need to focus more attention on
introducing proper evidence so that the
courts can consider ss. 9(b) and (c).
However, Metzner is an unusual case, which
probably should be limited to its facts.
CBA National Family Law Section
Across the Country
The Ontario Experience
The provisions of the Child Support Guidelines
dealing with “shared custody” and its impact on
the quantum of child support paid is set out in
s. 9. It provides as follows:
parent has the child 100% of the time, which is
reduced by the time the child is with the other
parent. An analysis of the actual time spent in
the child’s presence does not usually occur. The
courts are not prepared to discount the time that
a child sleeps, attends school or plays with
friends.
“Where a spouse exercises the right of access to,
or has physical custody of, a child for not less
than 40% of the time over the course of a year,
the amount of the child support order must be
determined by taking into account:
Once the determination is made that a child is
with the non-custodial parent more than 40% of
the time, the support will be determined after
taking into account the three enumerated
subsections of s. 9 of the Guidelines.
a. the amount set out in the applicable tables
for each of the spouses;
b. the increased costs of shared custody
arrangement; and
c. the conditions, means, needs and other
circumstances of each spouse and of any
child for whom support is sought.”
Subsection (a) is typically not in dispute, and the
amounts set out for support based on the
applicable tables for each parent are not difficult
to determine. The discretion of the court comes
into play in determining what to do once these
applicable table amounts are determined as
directed in ss. (b) and (c).
Many of the s. 9 cases in Ontario focus on what
amounts to 40% of time over the course of a
year. There is a presumption that the custodial
The court in Hunter (1998), 37 R.F.L. (4th) 260
(Ont. Gen. Div.) entered into an elaborate
calculation by pro-rating the amount of time the
By Cheryl Goldhart
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto
Child Support in Newfoundland
By Sandra M. Burke
Dawe & Burke, St. John’s
Newfoundland decisions regarding s. 9 of the
Child Support Guidelines are few.
In Mosher v. Martin (1998), 66 Nfld. & P.E.I.R.
97 (Nfld S.C., U.F.C.), the parties had joint legal
custody of the children. The father claimed that
if the children’s time at daycare and at school
was not included in the calculation of a 24-hour
period, he would have the children 41% of the
time. If the school/daycare time was roughly
shared between the parties, he would have the
children 41% of the time.
The court found the argument compelling;
however, the judge concluded that because the
father “does not exercise a right of access to the
children or have physical custody of them while
they are in school/daycare,” he cannot be
credited with this time. Interestingly, the court
dismissed the mother’s claim for extraordinary
expenses, on the basis that there was a
“significant disparity in income and an apparent
inequality resulting in this case from the 40%
rule.”
In determining the amount of time that children
spend with each parent, the Newfoundland
courts have followed Mosher v. Martin regarding
school/bedtimes, assigning these hours to the
parent who has “primary residence.” The actual
manner of calculation has been varied:
• on a 21/28 day period, tabulating the time spent
with each parent based on each 24-hour period,
assigning the school times and the bedtimes to
the parent having primary residence;
• obtaining an assessment by a third party to
determine where the children are spending the
time (primarily anecdotal);
• looking at lifestyle factors (where the children
attend school, the location of friends and
activities, the desires of the children) to
determine if there is persuasive evidence to
determine how the children spend their time
between their parent’s households.
Mosher v. Martin did not investigate further
whether, in fact, the father had no right to
exercise access to his children while they were at
school. What if the children were ill or if there
Section nationale du droit de la famille de l’ABC
child spent with each parent, setting off those
amounts and then adding a 50% gross-up for
extra costs flowing from the joint custody
regime. The court relied on what was referred to
as the “Colorado” formula; however, no
evidence was tendered to support this
reapportionment of additional costs of joint
custody.
This formula has not been widely accepted.
Judges have specifically stated that without
evidence tendered to substantiate a gross-up of
the Guidelines, the court would not do the same
(Crowther v. Diet [1998], O.J. 5376 and Burns v.
Burns [1998] O.J. 2602).
Although some cases have applied a
“set-off”approach, others have rejected this
analysis and ordered the table amount of support
to be paid, notwithstanding that the children are
with the other parent for 40% or more of the
time.
Each case appears to be determined on its own
facts. The broad discretion that provided to the
court in s. 9 can be and is being exercised to
balance any inequities in a given case.
were a school closure – is he available to take
them from school? While it remains out of step
with our current penchant towards milder
terminology, s. 16(5) of the Divorce Act supports
the view that parents with access to their children
have the right to inquire about their children’s
educational, medical and general welfare. It must
be implied that parents have an even greater right
and ability when there is shared parenting/joint
legal custody. To arbitrarily assign to one party
the school/daycare hours is to undermine the
essence of a joint custody/shared parenting
arrangement.
Notwithstanding, there is equity and merit in
assigning a proportion of care for those “extras”
that only one parent performs (e.g., getting
school lunches ready, providing meal
allowances, signing homework assignments,
making and attending medical appointments,
extra-curricular activities). Consideration must be
given to the division of care during holidays, as
the “time” element must include the entire year.
Section 9 of the Guidelines puts an emphasis on
time, but what should impact more on the
financial support is the proportion of care and
responsibility. What is needed is a sensitive
analysis of the roles that the parents play in their
children’s lives.
7
Child Support Guidelines
continued
Nova Scotia “Snapshot” of
Shared Custody
New Brunswick:
One Reported Case
By Robyn L. Elliott
McGinty McCleave, Halifax
Five reported decisions of Nova Scotia trial
courts contain analyses of s. 9, the shared
custody provision of the Child Support
Guidelines.
In Dempsey v. Dempsey, [1997] N.S.J. No. 327,
Justice Stewart referred to s. 9 and calculated
that the father would not have custody 146
days/nights over the course of the year.
In O’Quinn v. O’Quinn (1997), 165 N.S.R.
(2d) 330, Justice Gruchy stated his intention
that the parties “share as equally as possible in
the custody of and access to the children,” and
set out a schedule for the parents. In
considering child support, Justice Gruchy
quickly found that s. 9 applied. He ordered the
father to pay support to the mother in
accordance with the tables while the children
were in the custody of the mother. The mother
was found not to have enough income to make
a corresponding contribution during the time
the children resided with the father.
Associate Chief Judge Comeau found the
parties had a pattern of childcare that resulted
in the father having the child more than 40%
of the time, in A.E.C. v. G.B.H., [1998] N.S.J.
No. 580. His reasoning included consideration
of the language contained in drafts of the
Guidelines, the stated objectives of the
Guidelines, and Middleton v. MacPherson 29
RFL (4th) 334.
Justice Comeau noted that “the very limited
authorities dealing with this section are clear
that all three subsections must be applied to
the parties’ financial situation.” Without
applying the factors specifically to the case,
the court ruled that, “having considered all the
factors set out in s. 9 of the guidelines, the
court exercises its discretion in favour of
awarding the difference between the table
amounts of each party.”
In Hamm v. Hamm, [1998] N.S.J. No. 139,
Justice Goodfellow considered whether a
shared custody arrangement existed on an
application to vary. The father claimed the
children were in his care more than 40% of the
time. Justice Goodfellow stated:
8
“The child does not have to be in the physical
presence of the parent for all the time to be
credited to a determination of the time
requirement for shared custody. In order for
the time to be credited, the child must be the
responsibility of that parent during the entire
period. The period of time during the exercise
of access will be credited, even where this
primary responsibility is temporarily
delegated, for example, for any reasonable
temporary limited period where the child is
with a grandparent, babysitter, cub master, etc.
“A parent seeking credit for any period of time
to be included in the calculation of shared
custody must have the primary responsibility
of the child during the entire time frame
sought to be credited towards the prerequisite
40%.
“The onus is upon the person seeking
consideration on the basis of shared custody to
meet this absolute prerequisite of 40% of the
time over the course of a year, which is 146
days.”
Justice Goodfellow’s calculations concluded
the children were with their father for 137.66
days per year. He ruled that “in the absence of
analytical evidence establishing the threshold
of 146 days, the onus has not been met.”
In Johnston v. Johnston, [1988] N.S.J. No. 177,
the parties had an agreement the effect of which
was shared custody. Although the parties did
not address s. 9 on this variation application,
Justice Hood noted she did take it into
consideration in deciding not to vary support.
Hamm and A.E.C. contain the most detailed
statements to date respecting the application of
s. 9 in Nova Scotia. While A.E.C. does a broad
analysis respecting quantum, Hamm
encourages counsel to get down to a detailed
calculation to determine if there is shared
custody at all.
In negotiations, counsel have set support in
shared custody cases in a variety of ways,
including using the split custody set-off
approach and sometimes simply calling it
square.
By Shiela J. Cameron
Brown, Cameron, Moncton, N.B.
In the early days of the Child Support
Guidelines, it was not uncommon to have
clients request that they obtain 40% of time
with the child, presumably to reduce their
child support obligation.
There were great debates between lawyers
regarding what portion of the child’s life
should be examined in order to determine the
40% threshold. Some referred to the 24-hour
clock, while others wished to exclude sleep
time and school time. The majority of these
issues were resolved outside of the
courtroom and therefore no judicial
precedents were forthcoming.
In New Brunswick, there has only been one
reported case deciding the amount of child
support where the payor had the care of the
child for more than 40% of the time.
In Peacock v. Peacock, [1999] N.B.J. No.
313, the parties were granted shared physical
custody of their son. The mother also had a
child from a prior relationship and was
retaining sole custody of her. Madam Justice
Athey found the husband stood in the place
of a parent to the older child as well, and
therefore had a duty to pay child support for
her.
The father earned $28,500 and the mother
$10,400. Madam Justice Athey assessed the
father’s monthly support for two children,
which was $413 per month based on the
Child Support Guidelines. Judge Athey then
ordered the mother to pay child support of
$83 per month, the Guideline amount for her
income, for the son. The final result was that
the father would pay the difference of $330
per month.
Although this is the only reported case on
topic, from discussions with family law
practitioners it would appear the above ration
ale is being used insettlements and in nonreported motions and cases.
CBA National Family Law Section
L’article 9, d’une province à l’autre
En vertu de l’article 9 (garde partagée) des
Lignes directrices fédérales sur les pensions
alimentaires pour enfants, en vigueur depuis le
1er mai 1997, « si un époux exerce son droit
d’accès auprès d'un enfant, ou en a la garde
physique, pendant au moins 40 % du temps au
cours d’une année, le montant de l’ordonnance
alimentaire est déterminé compte tenu :
a) des montants figurant dans les tables
applicables à l'égard de chaque époux;
b) des coûts plus élevés associés à la garde
partagée;
c) des ressources, des besoins et, d'une façon
générale, de la situation de chaque époux
et de tout enfant pour lequel une pension
alimentaire est demandée. »
Cette disposition a été interprétée par les
tribunaux de nombreuses provinces depuis son
entrée en vigueur. En voici quelques
exemples :
• Colombie-Britannique
Dans l’interprétation et l’application de
l’article 9, trois questions ressortent des
jugements : le calcul du 40 %; le calcul de la
pension alimentaire quand l’article 9
s’applique; et le droit discrétionnaire de ne pas
appliquer l’article 9. Les tribunaux n’accordent
généralement pas au parent n’ayant pas la
garde une proportion du temps passé à l’école,
à la garderie ou à dormir. Par ailleurs, dans la
plupart des gardes partagées, la cour réduit la
pension alimentaire payable au parent ayant la
garde par le pourcentage du temps que l’enfant
passe avec le parent qui exerce son droit
d’accès. Quant aux coûts plus élevés associés
à la garde partagée, les tribunaux n’en ont pas
fait une préoccupation.
• Ontario
Plusieurs des causes liées à l’article 9 en
Ontario portent également sur le calcul du
40 %. Il y a présomption que le parent gardien
a 100 % de la garde, et ce pourcentage est
réduit en fonction du temps que l’enfant passe
avec l’autre parent. On n’analyse pas vraiment
le temps passé en présence du parent,
cependant, puisque les tribunaux tiennent
compte du temps de sommeil, ainsi que des
heures à l’école et avec des amis. Une fois que
le calcul démontre une présence supérieure à
40 % du parent n’ayant pas la garde, les
dispositions de l’article 9 sont appliquées.
Dans le jugement Hunter, en 1998, le tribunal
a fait des calculs détaillés du temps et des
coûts de la garde pour chaque parent, puis
augmenté le brut de 50 % pour compenser les
coûts plus élevés associés à la garde partagée.
Cette formule n’a pas été largement acceptée
et chaque cause tend à être jugée au mérite.
• Alberta
Lors de l’introduction des Lignes directrices,
les tribunaux établissaient d’abord s’il y garde
partagée à 40 % avant d’appliquer les tables
prévues à l’article 9 a). Cette approche est
maintenant rejetée. Les tribunaux présument
que l’enfant passe 100 % de son temps avec le
parent gardien puis prennent en considération
le temps réel de présence physique de chacun
des parents sans effectuer de comparaison. Il
reste cependant à déterminer quel poids sera
accordé au temps passé en présence de tiers
(école, garderie, etc.). La principale
préoccupation tient au fait que la cour a
souvent trop peu de renseignements pour bien
appliquer les dispositions à 9 b) et 9 c). Il peut
en résulter des jugements inéquitables dans les
cas où il existe un grand écart entre les
revenus de chaque parent.
• Nouvelle-Écosse
Les tribunaux de la Nouvelle-Écosse ont rendu
cinq jugements portant sur l’application de
l’article 9 en matière de garde partagée. Dans
O’Quinn c. O’Quinn, ayant opté pour la garde
partagée et constaté que l’article 9
s’appliquait, M. le juge Grouchy a ordonné au
père de verser une pension alimentaire à la
mère en fonction des tables, mais a jugé que
les faibles revenus de la mère ne lui
permettaient pas de verser une pension au père
pendant qu’il avait la garde. Dans Hamm c.
Hamm, M. le juge Goodfellow a déterminé
que la responsabilité, et non la présence
physique, devait servir au calcul du 40 %. Le
parent peut déléguer sa responsabilité de garde
à un tiers (grand-parent, gardienne, etc.) mais
ne l’abdique pas pour autant.
• Terre-Neuve
Dans la cause Mosher c. Martin, les parents
avait opté pour la garde partagée. Le père
affirmait qu’en excluant du calcul le temps
passé en garderie, sa part devait être fixée à
41 % du temps. Le juge a rejeté cet argument
en affirmant que le père n’exerçait pas son
droit d’accès et n’avait pas la garde physique
des enfants pendant qu’ils étaient à la garderie
ou à l’école. Le tribunal a cependant omis de
vérifier si le père avait le droit d’exercer son
Section nationale du droit de la famille de l’ABC
droit d’accès : si les enfants étaient malades,
s’il y avait fermeture temporaire de l’école,
serait-il disponible pour en prendre soin?
L’assignation arbitraire des heures d’école et
de garderie à l’un des deux parents mine
l’essence même des principes de la garde
partagée. Il faut par contre peser la valeur des
« extras » accomplis par un seul parent
(préparation des lunchs, surveillance des
devoirs scolaires, activités parascolaires,
rendez-vous chez le médecin, etc.). Les Lignes
directrices mettent l’accent sur le calcul du
temps, mais le besoin se fait sentir d’une
analyse plus sensible du rôle joué par chacun
des parents.
• Nouveau-Brunswick
Au début, il arrivait que des parents
demandent au moins 40 % de la garde
partagée pour tenter de réduire leur paiement
de pension alimentaire. Il en résulta de grands
débats entre avocats et avocates sur la manière
de déterminer si le seuil de 40 % était
effectivement atteint. Certains voulaient
exclure du calcul le temps de sommeil et le
temps passé à l’école. La majorité de ces
questions ayant été réglées à l’amiable, aucune
jurisprudence n’a été créée. De fait, au
Nouveau-Brunswick, une seule cause mettant
en cause l’article 9 sur la garde partagée a été
rapportée. Dans Peacock c. Peacock, le juge a
accordé une garde partagée, mais a également
décidé que le père devait verser une pension
alimentaire à un premier enfant de la mère issu
d’un mariage précédent et dont elle avait seule
la garde.
Business Meeting
The Family Law Section will be held on
Monday, August 21, 2000 from 3:30 to
5:00 at the WTTC, Meeting Room 2,
8th Level in Halifax.
All delegates are welcome!
9
Legal Aid...
continued from page 1
During 1999, the basic allotment for the
primary issue in family law cases was
increased from 6.5 to 12 hours, except for
custody and access where the allotment went
from 11.5 hours to 15 hours. Planned changes
include the installation of additional duty
counsel in Family Court and some Superior
Court proceedings, and the availability of
advice lawyers at family law information
centres across the province. Certificates are
planned for extended family members seeking
access to children. Despite these changes,
many lawyers and clients believe it is still too
difficult to qualify for legal aid.
Nova Scotia is an example of a blended legal
aid system where 80% of legal aid funding is
for the provision of legal services by staff
lawyers, while 20% is for the provision of
legal aid certificates to members of the private
Bar. Eligibility for legal aid is based on
income and parallels social assistance
eligibility. It is uncommon to receive legal aid
assistance where there are property issues of
any significance to be decided. Furthermore,
the small number of hours allocated to legal
aid work and the low tariff rate has meant that
many private practice family lawyers simply
will not accept certificates. More than one
lawyer has commented that it is easier simply
to take a case pro bono than to accept a legal
aid certificate and the paperwork that comes
with it.
In Newfoundland, certificates to private
practitioners for legal aid matters are issued in
only highly exceptional circumstances. The
Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission has 39
solicitors and 10 offices. Eligibility for legal
aid is determined on a financial and a case
merit basis. Funding is always an issue.
The British Columbia system groups family
services into three categories: emergency
services, non-emergency services and
approved services. Certain hours are allocated
to counsel under various headings in respect of
each of these types of services. Coverage is to
be provided where “the resolution of the case
is likely to provide an immediate, tangible
benefit to the client and/or his/her children,
and whether the legal action proposed is what
a reasonable person would pursue, if paying
for his/her own lawyer.”
Referral to alternative services such as
mediation is encouraged. Those applying for
mediation may receive coverage for a
maximum of six hours. Funding of custody
and access reports can be obtained in urgent
situations but otherwise, clients must deal with
10
the under-staffed family justice centres,
resulting in delays of up to nine months.
Where clients receive proceeds from a division
of assets, clients must repay at least a portion
of the amount that Legal Aid has paid to any
private lawyer who has been authorized by
Legal Services to act in the matter.
A source of ongoing aggravation is the B.C.
government’s failure to keep a promise made
when provincial sales tax was made applicable
to legal fees. The tax collected from legal fees
was supposed to be used to help fund legal aid.
If this had happened, many more millions
would be available to the Legal Services
Society, but the government has not kept this
promise. The availability of legal aid has also
been affected by unexpected outlays under the
Immigration Tariff in respect of the Chinese
refugee claimants that arrived in B.C. last year.
Overall, whether provinces provide legal aid
through dedicated offices, through issuing
certificates to private practitioners or through
some combination of the two, funding and
availability of services are generally not
keeping up with demand. As many provincial
governments struggle with deficit issues, there
is no guarantee that legal aid funding will
become more secure. It remains to be seen
whether courts will add pressure to provincial
governments loathe to fund legal aid, by
interpreting New Brunswick v. G (J) so as to
require legal services in family matters beyond
the context of child protection.
In the meantime, no one is expecting the
number of self-represented litigants in family
matters to diminish.
Family Law in
The Yukon
By John R. Laluk, Whitehorse
Family Law in the Yukon has been in flux. The
Territorial government attempted amendments
to the Family Property and Support Act. As
originally conceived, the changes to the Act
would have extended the definition of spouse
to include same sex relationships, and
extended all the rights of spousal support and
property rights similarly.
The result seemed to create for common-law
spouses greater rights than married couples
with respect to division of a family home. It
also purported to have retroactive effect over
previous relationships, enabling parties to
reopen their prior agreements to take
advantage of the amended provisions.
The local Bar (not just the CBA Family Law
Section) protested the lack of consultation in
the process surrounding this piece of
legislation.
Fortunately, before the legislators put the
amended Act to final vote, they heard from the
Bar and listened. Revisions were made and
family law lawyers in the Yukon have resumed
giving advice! For some months the confusion
and uncertainty which surrounded the
proposed legislation almost brought the
practice of family law to a standstill.
PRÉCIS
L’aide juridique...
suite de la page 1
la fin de l’année financière, la plupart des causes
matrimoniales sont couvertes aux Territoires du
Nord-Ouest et au Nunavut où, par ailleurs, l’aide
juridique n’est pas réservée aux personnes à faible
revenu. Par contre, aucun avocat du secteur privé
n’accepte de mandats de l’aide juridique au Nunavut
et à la fin de janvier 2000, quelque 130 causes
d’aide juridique en droit familial attendaient
l’assignation d’un avocat, certaines depuis mai
1999.
L’Alberta connaît aussi une pénurie d’avocats de
l’aide juridique, peut-être à cause du tarif horaire de
61 $. En Ontario, le nombre de mandats d’aide
juridique en droit familial a doublé depuis 1997; on a
aussi élargi la couverture et l’allocation initiale de
temps est passée de 6,5 à 12 heures (de 11,5 à
15 heures dans les causes de garde et d’accès). En
Nouvelle-Écosse, le financement va à 80 % aux
avocats salariés de l’aide juridique, et 20 % aux
mandats dans le secteur privé. À Terre-Neuve, avec
39 avocats et 10 bureaux régionaux, peu de mandats
d’aide juridique sont confiés aux praticiennes et
praticiens privés. Le régime de Colombie-Britannique
s’applique à trois catégories de services (urgences,
cas non urgents, et services approuvés); le nombre
d’heures allouées varie selon les situations et le
recours aux mécanismes extrajudiciaires, telle la
médiation, est encouragé. Partout au pays, le
financement reste précaire et l’on ne s’attend pas à
une diminution du nombre de personnes qui se
présentent en cour sans procureur.
CBA National Family Law Section
Top Ten Stressbusters
By Ron Profit
Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy
I do not need to state the many aspects of our
legal profession that cause stress. Add to that a
family law practice, and I know I sure can use
stressbusting tips.
I have been helped by many in our profession
towards a less stressful law practice – by their
example, personal reflections, and advice. All I
need to do is listen, observe, note, remind myself
and practice the stressbusting tips. Not always
that simple.
To make it simpler, the CBA National Family
Law Section has gathered over 100 stressbusting
tips. We wish to pass these along to better your
life, your job, your family, and your friendships.
We hope they help you.
Some tips have universal appeal. Some help a
few. Some tips really, really help me. Some do
little for me. Some tips I have always used. Some
never occurred to me, yet make so much sense
that I wonder how I missed them.
Here are the top ten tips that I am trying to
practice in 2000. I hope they help you too.
1. Being Grateful – At day’s end, maybe as
you lay in bed, reflect on five events in your
day for which you are grateful. Eventually,
instead of focusing on the problems, you will
be looking for grateful events throughout the
day for reflection at day’s end.
2. I Did Good – Once a day or more, pat
yourself on the back.
3. You Did Good – Once a day or more, pat
someone else on the back with a compliment,
a kind word, or congratulations.
4. Oh Boy! – Each day plan, anticipate and
participate in a positive, fun or rewarding
moment.
5. Meals With Loved Ones – Schedule
everything around the one daily meal to be
with family members or with those close to
you.
6. Positive/Enthusiastic – Associate with
positive enthusiastic individuals, inside and
outside business. Avoid “doom and gloom”
and “stressed-out” individuals.
8. Humour/Laughter – Create, nurture and use
humour and laughter as effective tools in your
practice and personal life.
9. Non-Adversarial – Remove the adversarial
tone. “Kill with kindness” the difficult
lawyer. Use politeness and/or humour to
respond to snotty letters and problem clients.
10. No Meetings – Although you may still be at
the office, do not have phone or office
meetings on Fridays, Mondays and/or after
2:30 p.m. daily.
For good measure, here is one more stressbusting
tip:
Manage Fee Expectations – Most complaints,
most lawyer/client problems are basically fee
disputes. Starting with the first meeting and your
Retainer Agreement, communicate frankly and
often about your hourly rate and legal fees
(project on the high side). Be proud to tell your
clients how much your services are worth.
If you have stressbusting tips or sanity savers, let
me know. We may include the tip in the next
article together with your name. I can be
contacted at 902-629-3908, (fax) 902-566-2639,
[email protected], or Patterson Palmer Hunt
Murphy, 20 Great George Street, Charlottetown,
P.E.I., C1A 7L1.
7. 12-Hour Break – Ensure at least 12 hours
between any two work days.
PRÉCIS
Les dix meilleurs trucs antistress
L’exercice de la profession juridique génère, il va sans
dire, un stress parfois considérable, et si en plus vous
êtes spécialisé en droit de la famille, alors vous avez
vraiment besoin de décompresser.
Pour simplifier les choses, la Section nationale du droit
de la famille de l’ABC a regroupé plus d’une centaine de
techniques antistress. Notre objectif est de les diffuser
parmi vous afin de vous rendre la vie plus agréable, que
ce soit au travail, à la maison ou avec vos amis. Nous
espérons que cela vous aidera.
2. J’ai bien réussi. Une ou plusieurs fois par jour,
pensez à vous congratuler.
3. Vous avez bien réussi. Une ou plusieurs fois par
jour, tâchez de faire plaisir à quelqu’un d’autre en lui
faisant un compliment, en lui disant un petit mot
gentil ou en le félicitant pour son travail.
4. Cherchez un moment de détente. Chaque jour,
planifiez, prévoyez ou participez à un moment
positif, amusant ou simplement gratifiant.
Voici donc les dix meilleurs trucs que je mettrai en
pratique tout au long de l’an 2000. J’espère sincèrement
qu’ils vous seront aussi utiles qu’à moi.
5. Un repas avec vos proches. Au moins une fois par
jour, efforcez-vous de prendre un repas en famille
ou avec une personne aimée.
1. Repérez les moments gratifiants. À la fin de la
journée, dans votre lit par exemple, essayez de
penser à cinq événements survenus dans la journée
qui vous valorisent. Vous constaterez qu’au lieu de
vous concentrer sur les problèmes de la journée,
cette méthode vous incitera à en rechercher plutôt
les événements gratifiants.
6. Soyez positif, enthousiaste. Tâchez de fréquenter
des personnes enthousiastes et positives tant au
travail qu’à l’extérieur. Évitez les êtres sinistres et
blasés qui vous sapent le moral.
7. Douze heures d’évasion. Tâchez de prendre au
moins 12 heures de repos entre deux journées de
travail.
Section nationale du droit de la famille de l’ABC
8. Sens de l’humour. Le défoulement par l’humour et
le rire est un outil indispensable dans le cadre de
votre pratique comme dans votre vie personnelle.
9. Évitez le ton contradictoire. Pour réagir aux lettres
d’insultes et aux problèmes des clients et clientes,
faites preuve de politesse, de courtoisie et
d’humour et tâchez de troquer l’agressivité contre
une certaine forme de légèreté, beaucoup plus
saine pour votre épanouissement.
10. Réunions proscrites. Même si vous êtes encore au
bureau, ne répondez pas au téléphone ou n’assistez
pas à des réunions le vendredi et le lundi et/ou
après 14 h 30 les autres jours.
Et pour finir en beauté, voici un dernier petit conseil :
Gérez vos attentes en matière d’honoraires. La plupart
des plaintes, et des problèmes avocats-clients, sont liés
à des désaccords sur les honoraires. Tenez-vous en à la
première réunion avec le client ou la cliente, respectez
les termes du mandat, ayez des communications
franches et régulières au sujet du taux horaire et des
frais juridiques (tâchez de projeter vers le plus élevé).
N’hésitez pas à répéter que vos services sont d’une
qualité supérieure.
11
Branch Section Chairs/Présidents et présidentes des sections de divisions
Alberta - Calgary
Victor Thomas Tousignant
Tousignant Young
Tel/Tél. : (403) 220-9550
Fax/Téléc. : (403) 220-9552
[email protected]
Alberta - Edmonton
Marla S Miller
Miller Boileau Family Law Group
Tel/Tél. : (780) 482-2888
Fax/Téléc. : (780) 482-4600
[email protected]
British Columbia - Kamloops/
Colombie-Britannique - Kamloops
Marlene S Harrison
Mair Jensen Blair
Tel/Tél. : (250) 374-3161
Fax/Téléc. : (250) 374-6992
[email protected]
British Columbia - Nanaimo/
Colombie-Britannique - Nanaimo
Ingrid K Hennig
Allin Anderson
Tel/Tél. : (250) 753-6435
Fax/Téléc. : (250) 753-5285
[email protected]
British Columbia - Okanagan/
Colombie-Britannique - Okanagan
Lisa D Holmes Wyatt
Pushor Mitchell
Tel/Tél. : (250) 762-2108
Fax/Téléc. : (250) 762-9115
[email protected]
British Columbia - Prince George/
Colombie-Britannique - Prince George
Saundra E Elson
Wilson, King & Company
Tel/Tél. : (250) 960-3200
Fax/Téléc. : (250) 562-7777
[email protected]
British Columbia - Prince George/
Colombie-Britannique - Prince George
Ken Repstock
Fletcher Repstock
Tel/Tél. : (250) 564-1313
Fax/Téléc. : (250) 563-4362
British Columbia - Vancouver/
Colombie-Britannique - Vancouver
Georgialee A Lang
Georgialee Lang & Associates
Tel/Tél. : (604) 669-2030
Fax/Téléc. : (604) 669-2038
12
British Columbia - Victoria/
Colombie-Britannique - Victoria
J David Ibbetson
Browne Tweedie
Tel/Tél. : (250) 598-1888
Fax/Téléc. : (250) 598-9880
[email protected]
Prince Edward Island/
Île-du-Prince-Édouard
Ronald J Profit
Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy
Tel/Tél. : (902) 629-3908
Fax/Téléc. : (902) 566-2639
[email protected]
British Columbia - Westminster/
Colombie-Britannique - Westminster
Thomas P Harding
Davies, Wenner & Harding
Tel/Tél. : (604) 585-1196
Fax/Téléc. : (604) 585-3293
[email protected]
Québec
Marie Gaudreau
Lavery, de Billy
Tel/Tél. : (514) 871-1522
Fax/Téléc. : (514) 871-8977
[email protected]
Manitoba
Randall A Horton
Deeley Fabbri Sellen
Tel/Tél. : (204) 949-1710 ext. 289
Fax/Téléc. : (204) 956-4457
[email protected]
New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick
Anne Dugas-Horsman
Fowler & Fowler
Tel/Tél. : (506) 857-8811
Fax/Téléc. : (506) 857-9297
Newfoundland/Terre-Neuve
Sandra M Burke
Dawe & Burke
Tel/Tél. : (709) 753-3400
Fax/Téléc. : (709) 753-4401
[email protected]
Newfoundland/Terre-Neuve
Jean Vivian Dawe
Dawe & Burke
Tel/Tél. : (709) 753-3400
Fax/Téléc. : (709) 753-4401
[email protected]
Northwest Territories/
Territoires du Nord-Ouest
Elaine T Keenan Bengts
Keenan Bengts Law Office
Tel/Tél. : (867) 873-8631
Fax/Téléc. : (867) 920-2511
[email protected]
Nova Scotia/Nouvelle-Écosse
Yvonne M R LaHaye
Crowe Dillon Robinson
Tel/Tél. : (902) 453-1732
Fax/Téléc. : (902) 454-9948
[email protected]
Ontario
Cheryl A Goldhart
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson
Tel/Tél. : (416) 862-5746
Fax/Téléc. : (416) 862-7661
[email protected]
Saskatchewan - North/Nord
Gregory G Walen
Hnatyshyn, Singer, Thorstad
Tel/Tél. : (306) 653-5150
Fax/Téléc. : (306) 652-5859
[email protected]
Saskatchewan - South/Sud
Jeffrey G Brick
Kanuka Thuringer
Tel/Tél. : (306) 525-7200
Fax/Téléc. : (306) 359-0590
[email protected]
Yukon
John R Laluk
Tel/Tél. : (867) 633-5691
Fax/Téléc. : (867) 633-5430
[email protected]
The Family Way/En famille is published by
the CBA’s Family Law Section. We invite
your comments.
The Family Way/En famille est publié par
la Section nationale du droit de la famille
de l’ABC. Vos commentaires sont les
bienvenus.
Editing/Rédaction : Carla Courtenay
Production/Réalisation : Elaine Muus
Design/Conception : Ken Watson
Translation/Traduction : Valérie Leclerq,
Pierre Allard
French Edit/Révision : Gaëtane Lemay
The Canadian Bar Association
L’Association du Barreau canadien
902-50 O’Connor,
Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 6L2
Tel/Tél: (800) 267-8860
Fax/Teléc.: (613) 237-0185
[email protected]
www.cba.org
CBA National Family Law Section