The Family Way En famille - Canadian Children`s Rights Council
Transcription
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 Laide juridique, dun océan à lautre Laide juridique a pour but dassurer laccès à la justice. Dans la cause Nouveau-Brunswick c. G., la Cour suprême du Canada avait statué en septembre 1999 que le refus de lAide juridique du NouveauBrunswick de fournir un conseiller juridique à une mère dans une affaire de garde denfants constituait une violation de ses droits en vertu de larticle 7 de la Charte des droits et libertés. Quand un parent na pu obtenir les services de laide juridique, quil veut les services dune avocate, dun avocat, et na 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 linstance et les capacités du parent. Le juge doit également garder à lesprit que, dans les limites de sa fonction juridictionnelle, il peut aider le parent. » En fin de compte, cependant, lÉtat a la responsabilité dassurer que le parent soit représenté sil risque de perdre la garde de son enfant à cause de lapplication dune procédure gouvernementale. Malheureusement, un sondage réalisé par la Section nationale du droit de la famille de lABC démontre que cette décision na pas eu pour effet de garantir un accès pancanadien à laide juridique dans les causes de droit familial. Laide juridique relevant des provinces, la qualité de laccès varie de lune à lautre. Les territoires illustrent bien cette situation. Contrairement au Yukon où laide juridique est limitée à certaines questions de protection et de garde provisoire des enfants et où lon 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 sentendre sur les conditions de séparation. Laide juridique civile devrait par ailleurs être financée davantage, ainsi que les programmes dassistance pratique aux enfants du divorce. Tout en jugeant opportunes les modifications apportées à la Loi sur le divorce étant donné lévolution 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 dintérêts 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. Lannée suivante, la Section du droit de la famille présenta au comité un mémoire au nom de lAssociation du Barreau canadien. Plutôt que de traiter des droits des pères et mères, lABC a insisté pour que la loi fasse référence aux responsabilités des parents, et quelle énumère les facteurs à considérer par la cour dans sa détermination des meilleurs intérêts des enfants. La Section applaudit lintention 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 daider les familles en situation de Dans son rapport intitulé Pour lamour des enfants, le Comité mixte spécial sur la garde et le droit de visite des enfants avait formulé 48 recommandations, dont plusieurs sinspiraient 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 Kerrs 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 larrêt Bracklow By Jennifer A. Cooper, Q.C. New Reproductive Technologies Committee National Family Law Section Rappelons que la Cour suprême a, dans larrêt Bracklow c. Bracklow, étendu le droit à la pension alimentaire à lex-conjointe malade, même à lissue dune 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 na 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 jusquau 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 lorsquelles portent sur des relations ou un mariage de courte durée. À moins dimposer 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 daccorder une pension alimentaire illimitée dans le temps en cas de relations maritales de longue durée en ajoutant limportance des « événements imprévus » sur la possibilité de faire réviser lordonnance, par exemple, la perte du statut dinvalide chez la personne réclamant une pension ou la perte demploi 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 lon exerce en droit de la famille, il faut sattendre à rencontrer certaines difficultés juridiques dans le cas des enfants qui sont le fruit dune procréation artificielle ou dune entente de maternité par substitution. Nos lois en matière de garde et de droit de visite et dautres lois relatives aux pensions alimentaires nont 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 dailleurs nommé une Commission royale sur les techniques de reproduction dont le Livre blanc a été analysé en profondeur par lABC. réglementer les techniques de reproduction et de génétique. Dans léventualité dune interdiction, toute activité dans ce domaine serait passible de sanctions criminelles. Tandis que si lactivité 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 sagit là dun secteur du droit en plein essor et dont nous surveillerons de près lévolution 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 quil vient de publier, le fédéral propose dadopter 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 lannée financière, la plupart des causes matrimoniales sont couvertes aux Territoires du Nord-Ouest et au Nunavut où, par ailleurs, laide juridique nest pas réservée aux personnes à faible revenu. Par contre, aucun avocat du secteur privé naccepte de mandats de laide juridique au Nunavut et à la fin de janvier 2000, quelque 130 causes daide juridique en droit familial attendaient lassignation dun avocat, certaines depuis mai 1999. LAlberta connaît aussi une pénurie davocats de laide juridique, peut-être à cause du tarif horaire de 61 $. En Ontario, le nombre de mandats daide juridique en droit familial a doublé depuis 1997; on a aussi élargi la couverture et lallocation initiale de temps est passée de 6,5 à 12 heures (de 11,5 à 15 heures dans les causes de garde et daccès). En Nouvelle-Écosse, le financement va à 80 % aux avocats salariés de laide juridique, et 20 % aux mandats dans le secteur privé. À Terre-Neuve, avec 39 avocats et 10 bureaux régionaux, peu de mandats daide juridique sont confiés aux praticiennes et praticiens privés. Le régime de Colombie-Britannique sapplique à trois catégories de services (urgences, cas non urgents, et services approuvés); le nombre dheures allouées varie selon les situations et le recours aux mécanismes extrajudiciaires, telle la médiation, est encouragé. Partout au pays, le financement reste précaire et lon ne sattend 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 Lexercice 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 lABC a regroupé plus dune 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. Jai 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 quelquun dautre 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 lan 2000. Jespère sincèrement quils vous seront aussi utiles quà 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 quau 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 quà lextérieur. Évitez les êtres sinistres et blasés qui vous sapent le moral. 7. Douze heures dévasion. 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 lhumour. Le défoulement par lhumour 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 dinsultes et aux problèmes des clients et clientes, faites preuve de politesse, de courtoisie et dhumour et tâchez de troquer lagressivité 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 nassistez 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 dhonoraires. 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). Nhésitez pas à répéter que vos services sont dune 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