Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shifting Scrutiny: Private Ordering in Family Matters in Common-Law Canada

  • Chapter
Book cover Contractualisation of Family Law - Global Perspectives

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 4))

  • 930 Accesses

Abstract

This paper surveys the place of contract or private ordering in the family law of the Canadian common-law provinces. While a certain space for legally effective private arrangements is evident respecting the vertical, parent-child relations of family law as well as the horizontal ones of adult intimate relations, there are limits. The common-law sources studied may not frame those limits as explicitly as the civil law’s constraints based on public order and good morals. Yet principles such as the court’s abiding jurisdiction to order support for a former spouse and the imperative of safeguarding the best interest of a child significantly constrain private ordering. On the matter of procedural contractualization or private ordering, the proliferation of programs and forms of dispute resolution complicates the picture. There is an impulse to foster out-of-court settlement of family disputes, balanced against certain controls. The overall observation is that efforts to protect vulnerable individuals and to assert the public interest in these common-law jurisdictions take the form of heightened scrutiny or review powers bearing on the products of private ordering, rather than the demarcation of zones in which contract is forbidden.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    AA v BB 2007 ONCA 2, 83 OR (3d) 561 at para 27.

  2. 2.

    Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(26).

  3. 3.

    Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(12).

  4. 4.

    Constitution Act, 1867, s. 92(13).

  5. 5.

    Miron v Trudel [1995] 2 SCR 513.

  6. 6.

    Quebec (Attorney General) v A 2013 SCC 5, [2013] 1 SCR 61.

  7. 7.

    Halpern v Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 65 OR (3d) 161 (CA).

  8. 8.

    Re K (1995), 23 OR (3d) 679 (Prov Div).

  9. 9.

    Rutherford v Ontario (Deputy Registrar General) (2006), 81 OR (3d) 81 (SCJ).

  10. 10.

    Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 SCR 817.

  11. 11.

    Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 495 at para 33.

  12. 12.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 52(2).

  13. 13.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 56(2).

  14. 14.

    RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp), s 15.2(4)(c).

  15. 15.

    Miglin v Miglin, 2003 SCC 24, [2003] 1 SCR 303.

  16. 16.

    Assisted Human Reproduction Act SC 2004, c 2, s 6.

  17. 17.

    See e.g. Children’s Law Reform Act RSO c C12, s 8(1)1, 8(1)4.

  18. 18.

    Family Law Act SBC 2011, c 25, s 30.

  19. 19.

    AA v BB 2007 ONCA 2, 83 OR (3d) 561.

  20. 20.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 31(1).

  21. 21.

    RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp), ss 2(2), 15.1.

  22. 22.

    Family Law Act SA 2003, c F-4.5, s 8.1(2).

  23. 23.

    SBC 2011, c 25, s 29.

  24. 24.

    Pratten v British Columbia (Attorney General) 2012 BCCA 480, 357 DLR (4th) 660, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2013] 2 SCR xii.

  25. 25.

    See e.g. Child and Family Services Act RSO 1990, c C11, s 153.6(1).

  26. 26.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, ss 52(1)(c), 53(1)(c).

  27. 27.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 54 (c).

  28. 28.

    See e.g. Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 56(1).

  29. 29.

    Chartier v Chartier (1998) [1999] 1 SCR 242.

  30. 30.

    Jane Doe v Alberta 2007 ABCA 50, 404 AR 153, leave to appeal to SCC refused (sub nom Doe v The Queen), [2007] 2 SCR vi.

  31. 31.

    RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp).

  32. 32.

    Divorce Act RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp), s 8.

  33. 33.

    RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp), s 15.2(5).

  34. 34.

    Leskun v Leskun 2006 SCC 25, [2006] 1 SCR 920.

  35. 35.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 61(2)(d).

  36. 36.

    Kerr v Baranow 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 SCR 269.

  37. 37.

    RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp), s 21.1; see also Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, ss 2(4), 2(5), 2(6).

  38. 38.

    Rules of Civil Procedure RRO 1990, Reg 194, s 50.10; Supreme Court Civil Rules BC Reg 168/2009, s 9-2(3).

  39. 39.

    Ontario Rules s 50.02.

  40. 40.

    BC Rules ss 5-3(1)(o), 9-2(1).

  41. 41.

    BC Rules s 5-1(2).

  42. 42.

    Ontario Rules s 24.1.08.

  43. 43.

    BC Rules s 5-3(1)(o).

  44. 44.

    See e.g. Arbitration Act 1991 SO 1991, c 17.

  45. 45.

    RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp), s 9(2).

  46. 46.

    SBC 2011, c 25, s 4(b).

  47. 47.

    Sections 6(a)-6(b)(ii).

  48. 48.

    Family Law Rules O Reg 114/99, s 8.1.

  49. 49.

    Sections 17(1), 17(4), 17(5), 17(6), 17(7).

  50. 50.

    Sections 17(4)(a), 17(5)(a), 17(6)(a).

  51. 51.

    Family Law Rules O Reg 114/99, s 17(8)(b).

  52. 52.

    Family Law Act SBC 2011, c 25, s 8(2).

  53. 53.

    Family Law Act RSO c 1990, c F3, s 59.4.

  54. 54.

    Family Law Act RSO c 1990, c F3, s 59.6.

  55. 55.

    Arbitration Act 1991 SO 1991, c 17, ss 1 “family arbitration,” 2.1, 2.2.

  56. 56.

    Marchese v Marchese 2007 ONCA 34, 35 RFL (6th) 291 at para 6.

  57. 57.

    Family Law Act RSO c 1990, c F3, s 59.8; see also Arbitration Act RSBC 1996 c 55, ss 29–30.

  58. 58.

    Arbitration Act 1991, s 45.

  59. 59.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 55(1).

  60. 60.

    Rick v Brandsema 2009 SCC 10, [2009] 1 SCR 295.

  61. 61.

    Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 56(4).

  62. 62.

    Family Law Act SBC 2011, c 25, s 93(3).

  63. 63.

    Family Law Act SBC 2011, c 25, s 93(5).

  64. 64.

    Miglin v Miglin 2003 SCC 24, [2003] 1 SCR 303.

  65. 65.

    LMP v LS 2011 SCC 64, [2011] 3 SCR 775.

  66. 66.

    See e.g. Family Law Act RSO 1990, c F3, s 33(4)(b).

  67. 67.

    Bracklow v Bracklow [1999] 1 SCR 420.

References

  • Abrams, L, & McGuinness, KP (2010) Canadian civil procedure law (2nd ed.). Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Bala, N, & Leckey, R (2013) Family law and the Charter’s first 30 years: An impact delayed, deep, and declining but lasting. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 32(1):21–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldassi, CL (2006) The legal status of aboriginal customary adoption across Canada: Comparisons, contrasts, and convergences. University of British Columbia Law Review 39(1):63–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Besson, S (2007) Enforcing the child’s right to know her origins: Contrasting approaches under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 21(2):137–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigwood, R (2005) Antipodean reflections on the Canadian unconscionability doctrine. Canadian Bar Review 84(2):171–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, SB (2007) Gendering legal parenthood: Bio-genetic ties, internationality and responsibility. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 25(1):63–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Brun, H, Tremblay, G, & Brouillet, E (2014) Droit constitutionnel (6th edn). Cowansville, Quebec: Yvon Blais

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnée, J, & Toope, SJ (2004) A hesitant embrace: Baker and the application of international law by Canadian courts. In: Dyzenhaus D (ed), The Unity of Public Law. Oxford: Hart, p 357–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A (2007) Conceiving parents through law. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 21(2):242–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossman, B (2007) Parenting beyond the nuclear family: Doe v. Alberta. Alberta Law Review 45(2):501–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, P (2010) Muslim marriage in Western courts: Lost in transplantation. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, HP (2014) Legal traditions of the world: sustainable diversity in law (5th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Halley, J, & Rittich, K (2010) Critical directions in comparative family law: Genealogies and contemporary studies of family law exceptionalism. American Journal of Comparative Law 58(4):753–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvison Young A (2000) This child does have 2 (or more) fathers … Step-parents and support obligations. McGill Law Journal 45(1):107–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvison Young, A (2001) The changing family, rights discourse and the Supreme Court of Canada. Canadian Bar Review 80(1 & 2):749–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, F (2009) Producing paternity: The role of legal fatherhood in maintaining the traditional legal family. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 21(2):315–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, F (2012) Autonomous from the start: Single mothers by choice in the Canadian legal system. Child and Family Law Quarterly 24(3):257–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Korteweg, A, & Selby, JA (eds) (2012) Debating Sharia: Islam, gender politics, and family law arbitration. Toronto: University of Toronto Press

    Google Scholar 

  • LaViolette, N (2007) Dad, Mom—and Mom: The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in A.A. v. B.B. Canadian Bar Review 86(3):665–689

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, R (2008) What is left of Pelech? In: Cameron J (ed), Reflections on the legacy of Justice Bertha Wilson. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, p 103–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, R (2009a) A common law of the family? Reflections on Rick v. Brandsema. Canadian Journal of Family Law 25(2):258–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, R (2009b) Families in the eyes of the law: Contemporary challenges and the grip of the past. IRPP Choices (Vol. 15, pp. 1–42). Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckey, R (2012) Developments in family law: The 2010–2012 terms. Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 59:193–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, F (2012) L’avenir de l’accouchement dans le secret en France. Droit et société 82:643–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, A (2013) Multiculturalism meets privatisation: The case of faith-based arbitration. International Journal of Law in Context 9(3):343–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCamus, JD (2012) The law of contracts (2nd edn). Toronto: Irwin Law

    Google Scholar 

  • McInnes, M (2011) Cohabitation, trusts and unjust enrichment in the Supreme Court of Canada. Law Quarterly Review 127(3):339–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossman, MJ (2012) Families and the law: cases and commentary. Concord, Ont.: Captus Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, JD, & Payne, MA (2013). Canadian Family Law (5th edn). Toronto: Irwin Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Razack, SH (2007) The ‘Sharia law debate’ in Ontario: The modernity/premodernity distinction in legal efforts to protect women from culture. Feminist Legal Studies 15(1):3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, C (2001) The child support obligation of step-parents. Canadian Journal of Family Law 18(1):9–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, C (2004) The Canadian law of spousal support. Family Law Quarterly 38(1):69–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, C (2012) Spousal support agreements and the legacy of Miglin. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 31(1):13–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, CJ (2003) ‘They are agreements nonetheless’. Canadian Journal of Family Law 20(1), 197–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, A, & Adamski, J (2012) Canadian contract law (3rd edn). Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, CFL (2015) Taxing times for lesbians and gay men: Twenty years later. In: Leckey R (ed), After Legal Equality: Family, Sex, Kinship. Abingdon: Routledge, p 134–149

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by the Fay Cotler Fund. I acknowledge the excellent research provided by Marc Roy. For comments on a draft, I am indebted to Nicholas Bala.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Robert Leckey

Authors
  1. Robert Leckey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Leckey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Research Group Personal Rights & Property Rights, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Frederik Swennen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Leckey, R. (2015). Shifting Scrutiny: Private Ordering in Family Matters in Common-Law Canada. In: Swennen, F. (eds) Contractualisation of Family Law - Global Perspectives. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17229-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation