Justice Committee on Nov. 21st, 2018

[Abimbola Ajibolade]

Thank you.

The concerns of my colleagues are really valid. Safety is important, and I will not sit here and minimize that at all. It is important that women and children continue to be safe, that people continue to be safe.

I'm leaning towards creating more alternatives apart from the regular traditional family court system because of what I'm hearing women say. Some women say they don't want to go through the rigorous family law court system. They say, “This relationship has broken down. There is abuse. I don't want to get into more adversarial situations with my partner. I just want there to be a way for us to resolve child custody issues and child support.”

I look back and statistics show that since the beginning of this year, we've lost over 70 women already to domestic homicide. That breaks my heart. That keeps me awake every night. Therefore, my question is, are we getting everything we want to get within the traditional family court system? How about creating alternatives that women can access?

If some women still want to go to the family court, I am all for that. I want to support their choice. However, if they choose to say, “I want to do something a bit different; I just want to get this out of the way and have a less conflicting way of resolving child custody and support, and all those issues, a way that I feel keeps me a bit safer,” then I also want to support that. The voices of women should be heard, and that is what I bring here in terms of championing that cause.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you...

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Unfortunately, your speaking time is up. We'll now move on to Mr. Fraser, who will share his speaking time with Mr. Virani.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Yes, I'm going to share with Mr. Virani, but he will go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Okay, sure.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I want to start by saying thank you to all of the witnesses. It's been informative and you've come here on a very cold evening. Thank you for doing that.

I will focus my questions with Ms. Ajibolade, partly out of gratuitous self-interest. I'm very proud of the work you do in the riding I represent, Parkdale—High Park, with The Redwood shelter for women and children. It's incredible the amount of support that you offer to the community and the entire city of Toronto. Thank you for that incredible work.

I'm splitting my time with Mr. Fraser, so I'll ask you a couple of questions consecutively. If possible, would you respond trying to leave him some time to also ask a question.

We've heard some discussion about equal parenting. There was a reference made to a 1998 report of the special joint committee called “For the sake of the children”. That actually didn't include a presumption on parenting, and as was noted by one of the other witnesses, there is no equal parenting presumption in this legislation. That was very deliberate.

First, I would like to hear your views, Abi, on how the work you're doing to combat family violence relates to equal parenting, because it is our view very clearly in this bill that equal parenting wouldn't account for the family violence that is involved in many of the domestic marital breakdowns that occur. You need to treat each case on a case-by-case basis. Is that important to address the family violence you're combatting?

Secondly, we had this on Monday. Do you feel that the definition of “family violence” as it currently stands is inclusive enough? I'm asking specifically because another witness raised this idea about harassment through cyber-bullying and things like threatening to post pictures on Facebook and spread rumours about a woman through social media. Would you comment on that? Do you think there needs to be a change in the “family violence” definition in the legislation, or is it broad enough, from your perspective?

[Abimbola Ajibolade]

Thank you.

On the presumption of equal shared parenting, I completely commend and applaud that it is not in this divorce bill. I think, as you said, it should be treated case by case. Especially in cases of family violence and power imbalance situations, it is appropriate that it is not there. My belief, and what I've heard women say, is that it forces them to have to prove a lot to the courts, prove that the father or the other parent is an unfit parent. It gets messier. I think it should be treated case by case, as you rightly said. I think the intention behind intentionally not including it in this bill is commendable. I'm happy about it.

On the issue of....

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It's whether the definition of family violence is inclusive enough.

[Abimbola Ajibolade]

Yes. I completely agree with my colleagues who talked about the different forms of abuse. It's quite wide, and cyber-bullying is actually a lot.... One of our sister shelters recently put out a public service announcement just about a month ago. It was all focused on a woman persistently being abused through technology, cyber-bullying and all of those things.

Yes, I believe family violence should include all of that and even more. I think it's a step in the right direction, what we have now, but I also think that a little more in terms of language...and the definition needs to be expanded.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks very much.

Thank you to everybody for being here today. I appreciate your input.

Mr. Samery, you said something and I want to make sure I understand. You alluded to the best interests of the child being a presumption. I would suggest to you that it's far more than a presumption in family law. It's long been known in case law, and this bill codifies the fact, that it's the overriding consideration that should be in place in order to determine parental arrangements.

Would you agree with that or did I misunderstand what you were saying about it being just a presumption?

[Robert Samery]

I hope you misunderstood because I agree with that completely.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Okay. Thanks.

Ms. Bendo, I will take a slightly different angle from my colleague a moment ago. You had indicated that your organization is against putting the “maximum parenting time” principle into the bill even though it says that it has to be consistent with the best interests of the child. You came at it from the angle that this is because of family violence that occurs in many instances and that may not come forward otherwise.

If there was no family violence at all in a particular case, no possible evidence that was even remotely true, would you then still be against the principle of maximum parenting time?

[Elba Bendo]

I know that in the panel before me, Ms. O'Brien referenced all durations in parental responsibility post-separation. All I can do in answering your question specifically is to leave it at that, because I don't have any further comments on whether, if there were no family violence, we would still not want the provision in the bill.

I would like to restate what Ms. Hawkins stated, which is that this provision has been removed from the B.C. Family Law Act explicitly. Despite clear provisions in the act that suggest that this should not be considered by judges at all, judges do consider it. They consider it very often. It is a presumption that lies very closely to the way they determine parental responsibility, custody and time.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

How was that removed from the B.C. legislation? Was it removed by another statute, or a committee?

[Kim Hawkins]

In section 40 of the Family Law Act, it explicitly states that no parenting arrangement is presumed to be in the best interests of the child. There's also explicit direction that parenting time and parenting responsibilities should not be presumed to be allocated equally. The idea of maximum contact was not included, and there was also a specific direction saying that there is not a presumption.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks.

[Elba Bendo]

May I just make one final comment in answering?

You posed a question about when there is no family violence. One thing I thought of is that in the B.C. Family Law Act, a provision has been added that says that some of the circumstances relevant to what is in the best interests of the child include the nature and strength of the child's relationship with significant persons in the child's life, as well as the history of the child's care.

To me, that indicates that when considering what is in the best interests of the child, the legislature clearly found that some stability in the child's relationship with each parent was important. I think that goes to what Ms. O'Brien mentioned regarding the maximum parenting time.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our panel of witnesses. You've been very helpful. I'm very appreciative of your time here.

Before we conclude this meeting, we have to elect the Conservative vice-chair of our committee. I believe we're going to be electing Mr. Cooper.

Can I have a motion to nominate Mr. Cooper for vice-chair?

Perfect. It looks as though everyone is moving that.

(Motion agreed to)

Congratulations on that illustrious move from that chair to this one.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you again. The meeting is adjourned.