Reports Of Committees
| Author | J. M. Eekelaar |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1974.tb02394.x |
| Date | 01 July 1974 |
| Published date | 01 July 1974 |
REPORTS
OF’
COMMITTEES
LAW
REFORM
COMMISSION
OF
CANADA:
WORKING
PAPER
No.
1
THE
FAMILY
COURT
THE impetus of the movement for a unified
and
reconstructed
system of family courts
in
England and Wales seems to have
faded.=
It
has not done
so
in Canada, where the first Working
Paper of the Law Reform Commission
of
Canada deals with this
subject. The Commission undertook major studies into (a)
a
con-
ceptual analysis of unified Family Courts, (b) an explanation of the
philosophy, structure and operation of Canadian courts presently
exercising family jurisdiction and (c) an attitudinal survey
of
Can-
adian judges concerning the manner in which family matters are,
and should be, .disposed of by courts. The Working Paper ex-
presses the preliminary ,views
of
the Commission on consideration
of the evidence presented to
it
and, although obvious differences
between the legal systems of this country and Canada must be
remembered (in particular, the complications caused by Canadian
federalism), the broad conclusions of the Commission will be of
value to our deliberations.
The Commission accepts the fundamental premise that pro-
cedural reform in the form of a unified Family Court is an im-
portant condition for successful reform of substantive law.* The
defects of the existing fragmentation of jurisdiction are exposed.
It
causes
“
despair, confusion and frustration
)’
to participants,
leads to unnecessary cost and, most importantly, conceals the
cc
total problem
))
from the individual tribunals.’ In Canada, the
source
of
this problem lies in its federal structure, but our unitary
system has contrived to achieve a similar proliferation of jurisdic-
tion in family matters, with similar consequences. On this, as on
some other matters, the Commission’s approach is somewhat am-
biguous.
It
steadfastly insists that
“
constitutional barriers should
not prevail against the establishment of
a
progressive and effective
family court system,” yet, when deciding whether the unified
court should fall within the superior
or
provincial court systems,
argues against the provincial level (although
‘(
it
might well be
contended that [this would be] the better solution
”)
on the ground
that the Constitution currently prevents conferment
of
exclusive
1
*January
1974.
(Information Canada, Ottawa.)
*
A Working Party
of
the
Law
Commission on
E’amily Courts has existed
for
some
time,
but
a
Working
Paper has
not
yet
appeared:
Law
Commission:
Eighth
Annual
Report
(19”2-73),
para.
50.
3
Working Paper,
p.
1
(citations refer
to
the
English
section
of
the
docnment).
5
Ibid.,
p.
9.
4
Ibid.,
pp.
7-9.
450
To continue reading
Request your trial