Canada: A Bold and Progressive Past but an Unclear Future

Canada: A Bold and Progressive Past but an Unclear Future

Canada: A Bold and Progressive Past but an Unclear Future

Canada: A Bold and Progressive Past but an Unclear Futures

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [11874]

Rogerson, Carol. 2012. «Canada: A Bold and Progressive Past but an Unclear Future». Dans The Future of Child and Family Law , sous la dir. de Elaine E. Sutherland, p. 77-111: Cambridge University Press.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs


Intentions :
Le but de ce chapitre est d’explorer l’évolution du droit familial et du droit de l’enfant au Canada.

2. Méthode


Échantillon/Matériau :
Données documentaires diverses

Type de traitement des données :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé


«The first major wave of family law reform in Canada, beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, was focused on bold, progressive reform of substantive law. Much of that substantive reform agenda has been successfully completed, although, as has been shown, a few pieces of unfinished business remain: reform of custody and access law, including greater concern for hearing the voices of children, extending property rights to unmarried couples and resolving the financial implications of serial family formation. In addition, ongoing technological and social change has put some new substantive issues on the table that will require ongoing attention, for example assisted reproduction and an increasing number of challenging issues around multicultural accommodation. The second major wave of family reform, which is currently in progress, is procedural. Currently, the most pressing and challenging issues of reform relate to the implementation of more effective and efficient methods of dispute resolution and ensuring access to justice. Without an increased commitment of political will and financial resources, it is not so clear that Canada will be as successful in rising to the challenges raised in this second wave of family law reform as it was in responding to the need for reform of substantive law in the first wave.» (p. 110-111)