Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 16-23 of 23
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Justice committee  That's right. So because it's the best interests of the child, they would always look at that factor.

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid

Justice committee  Neither “terminal illness” nor “critical condition” are defined. What would happen is the court would be required to apply those terms on a case-by-case basis.

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid

Justice committee  The first question that you had asked was what would be different technically with the addition of this provision to the Divorce Act. I guess the difference this particular provision would make is that currently under subsection 17(5), when you have someone applying for a variati

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid

Justice committee  It would facilitate. There are two parts of the analysis. You would move directly to the second aspect, which is a new order in the best interests of the child.

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid

Justice committee  The one technical point I think we might bring to your attention is the word “ensure” that's used in the bill. I think that the word “ensure” is a little different from the type of wording that is currently used under the Divorce Act. For example, the Divorce Act now uses wording

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid

Justice committee  Do you want me to start with a specific one? There were so many.

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid

Justice committee  Members of the committee, we're pleased that you have invited us to participate in these committee hearings. My name is Claire Farid. I'm counsel with the family law policy unit of the family, children, and youth section. With me is Lise Lafrenière-Henrie, senior counsel and co

December 11th, 2006Committee meeting

Claire Farid