Thursday Thinkpiece: A Basic Guide to Canadian Family Law

Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. In every case the proper permissions have been obtained. If you are a publisher who would like to participate in this feature, please let us know via the site’s contact form.

A Basic Guide to Canadian Family Law — What Everybody Needs to Know About Canadian Family Law but Could Never Afford to Ask

Authors: Julien D. Payne; Marilyn A. Payne
Publisher: Irwin Law Inc.
Imprint: Irwin Law
Publication Date: October 18, 2023
ISBN: Print (Paperback): 9781552217146
ISBN: Digital (PDF): 9781552217153
Page count: 240 pages; 6″ x 9″

Excerpt: Chapter 1. “The Nature, Evolution, and Sources of Canadian Family Law; Self-Represented Parties” [Footnotes omitted]

A. Definition of Family

You might think that a book on Canadian family law would begin with a comprehensive legal definition of “family,” but that is not possible. The term “family” does not have a precise legal definition. Law tends to regulate the rights and obligations of individuals, as distinct from groups such as families. Family law might more properly be called the “law of domestic relations” because it focuses on the rights and obligations of individuals whose family relationships have broken down. In short, family law deals primarily with the legal consequences of family breakdown.

People often think that “marriage” and “family” are synonymous, but these words are not interchangeable in law. The term “family” cannot be exactly defined. Many, but not all, families are the product of a marriage. Two unmarried persons of the opposite sex or of the same sex who share their lives may be viewed as members of the same family for social and/or legal purposes.

More often than not, the presence of children signifies a family relationship. Children may be born of married parents or outside of marriage. Their parents may or may not live together. The parents may have lived together before or after the birth of the child but may no longer do so by reason of separation or divorce. Some children are adopted. In relatively rare situations, a child’s birth may have resulted from surrogate parenting arrangements or the use of new reproductive technologies. Children are usually family members of the household in which they reside, but this is not always true. Some children do not live with either of their parents or may live with aunts, uncles, or grandparents. They may live in foster homes or even with friends or neighbours. In the past, the majority of children of divorcing parents resided primarily with their mother after spousal separation or divorce, and the father would spend time with the children on alternate weekends and for designated blocks of time of time during school vacations. Major decision making with respect to the children’s health, education, and welfare would usually be made by the mother as the primary caregiving parent. But times have changed, and current law promotes maximum contact between children and their separated or divorced parents and the sharing of decision making, unless this is contrary to the best interests of the children, as may be the case, for example, where there is a high degree of ongoing conflict between separated or divorced parents or family violence precludes maximum contact or shared decision making on major matters affecting the children. The emphatic principle underlying recent federal and provincial statutory changes in Canada is that divorce extinguishes the marital tie, but it should not destroy the parent–child relationship.

Whether the indicia of a family relationship involve marriage, parenthood, a common household, or the sharing of responsibilities, there are many unresolved legal questions concerning the characterization of “families” and the rights and obligations of family members.

Although some will look back with nostalgia to the traditional nuclear family of the 1950s, with its bread-winning husband, homemaking wife, and two children, that is now a minority group in terms of contemporary family structures in Canada. Today, Canadian families take a wide variety of forms. They include childless marriages, two-parent families, single-parent families where the mother is the primary caregiver, single-parent families where the father is the primary caregiver, common law relationships between members of the opposite sex with or without children, same-sex couples, and blended or reconstituted families that are the product of sequential “common law relationships” or divorce and remarriage. Family structures may also vary according to ethnic and cultural factors. Customary Inuit adoptions, for example, bear little or no resemblance to the statute-based systems of adoption that exist in Canadian provinces and territories.

Clearly, traditional notions of the family must be re-examined in the search for rational and equitable social and legal policies. In the final analysis, however, it may be impractical for the law to endorse an all-encompassing definition of “family” that applies for all legal purposes. As in the past, the extent to which the law will recognize a family relationship may turn on the purpose for which such recognition is sought.

B. The Nature of Family Law

In the past, family law was perceived as a system of law that regulated the formation and dissolution of marriage and the rights and obligations that flowed from the marital relationship. It focused primarily on the traditional nuclear family, comprising the husband, the wife, and their dependent children. With the phenomenal increase in the divorce rate flowing from Canada’s Divorce Act in 1968 and with the growing incidence of non-marital cohabitational relationships, including same-sex relationships, family law has now shifted its primary focus to include the regulation of non-marital family relationships. The high divorce rate; the increasing incidence of unmarried cohabitants who live in “common law relationships,” same-sex marriages, and cohabitation; the two-income family; the changing needs of the labour force; cultural diversity; the aging of the Canadian population; and many other factors have generated new challenges for Canada. Contemporary policy issues that engage our attention include the following:

• What can be done to ensure that the children of separated or divorced parents receive the best parenting possible after the family breaks down?
• How can the economic interests of dependent women and children be protected in the event of family breakdown or divorce?
• How should the legal system respond to the prohibitive costs of litigation as a means of resolving family disputes?
• What changes are necessary to provide the increasing number of self-represented litigants with access to justice?
• How can family law be made more collaborative rather than intensely competitive and, all too often, combative?
• Do lawyers and judges need a different kind of training from the traditional methods used in the past?
• How can the law encourage fair and reasonable settlements as an alternative to costly and emotionally exhausting litigation?
• Is some kind of triage system appropriate by way of an intake process in family disputes?
• Should mediation be mandatory? Should private arbitration be encouraged?
• How should law and society deal with family violence?

A cursory examination of the Table of Contents of this book reveals that many of the above questions are addressed so as to provide the reader with a basic guide to their resolution.

C. The Evolution of Canadian Family Law: Past, Present, and Future

The actual or prospective role of the law in regulating, moulding, and sustaining family relationships has been a neglected field of research in Canada and elsewhere. Federal, provincial, and territorial legislation regulating the rights and obligations of family members has been largely piecemeal in its evolution, and no coherent family policy has been articulated. In essence, however, the predominant legislative trend has been towards the assertion of individual rights and liberties rather than the assertion of any family right. For the most part, family law statutes have been premised on the notion that any form of government intervention is an intrusion upon privacy that can only be justified in the event of a breakdown in the family relationship. It is only in relatively recent years that the incidence of family violence has caused people and governments to become proactive about this serious problem.

During the past fifty-five years, revolutionary changes have occurred with respect to the legal rights and obligations of family members. It can safely be said that no other field of law has undergone such radical change, as a few examples will show.

In 1968, Canadians witnessed fundamental changes in the law of divorce. Before 1968, adultery constituted the sole ground for divorce, except in Nova Scotia, where matrimonial cruelty constituted an alternative ground for relief. In Quebec and Newfoundland, divorce was only available by a private Act of Parliament prior to the introduction of judicial divorce in 1968. With the enactment of the first comprehensive Divorce Act in 1968, “no-fault” divorce grounds were introduced in addition to an extended list of “offence” grounds. The Divorce Act of 1968 also broke new ground by establishing formal legal equality of support rights and obligations between divorcing and divorced men and women. Although the current Divorce Act, enacted in 1985, amended the law relating to the criteria for divorce and spousal and child support and amendments to the current Divorce Act of 1985, which came into force on 1 March 2021 introduced fundamental changes to parenting rights and obligations, the truly radical breakthroughs occurred with the Divorce Act of 1968, which laid the groundwork for future provincial and territorial statutory changes.

Before 1968, the support of divorcing or divorced spouses was regulated by provincial and territorial statutes that imposed a unilateral obligation on a “guilty husband” to maintain his “innocent wife” in the event of a breakdown of their marriage ensuing from his commission of adultery, cruelty, or desertion. The same principles applied to spousal support claims brought independently of divorce proceedings. During the 1970s and 1980s, many provinces and territories enacted legislation that eliminated the offence concept as the foundation of spousal support rights and obligations. In addition, following the precedent established by the federal Divorce Act of 1968, the right to spousal support on marriage breakdown in the absence of divorce became no longer confined to wives under provincial and territorial legislation; a financially dependent spouse of either sex could look to his or her marital partner for financial support on the breakdown of their marriage. The governing consideration is no longer sex based but turns primarily upon the financial needs of the claimant and the ability of his or her spouse to pay. Each spouse is expected, however, to strive for financial self-sufficiency. Thus, marriage is no longer perceived as creating a right to lifelong financial support for a dependent spouse in the event of marriage breakdown.

These fundamental changes in the right to divorce and the right to spousal support on divorce or marriage breakdown have been accompanied by equally fundamental changes in provincial and territorial statutes governing the division of property on marriage breakdown or divorce. Separated and divorced wives no longer find themselves in the prejudicial position in which Irene Murdoch found herself in the mid-1970s when the Supreme Court of Canada denied her any interest in a ranch held in her husband’s name, notwithstanding that she had worked alongside her husband in the fields. Although the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently abandoned the Murdoch decision in favour of a more enlightened approach, the inequities of the Murdoch case triggered provincial and territorial legislation that now provides for property sharing on marriage breakdown that is no longer based on who holds the title to the property or who purchased it.

Statutory reforms in children’s rights have been modest in comparison with the aforementioned changes affecting husbands and wives. The concept of “children’s rights” is still relatively new, although certain changes have already occurred and presage future trends. First and foremost, legal distinctions between the children of married parents and the children of unmarried parents have long been eliminated. This is consistent with the philosophy of equality that is guaranteed by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In child protection proceedings, where a provincial agency, such as a Children’s Aid Society, seeks to remove a child from his or her family, the courts may order that the child be represented by an independent lawyer. The rules of evidence have been relaxed so as to protect the interests of children who appear as witnesses in criminal prosecutions for sexual assault or child abuse. More recently, amendments to the Divorce Act implemented the following changes: (1) the outdated and inappropriate terminology of “custody” and “access” orders has been replaced by the concept of “parenting orders,” which focus on parenting time and decision-making authority; (2) an extensive but non-exhaustive list of criteria has been introduced to assist courts in determining the “best interests of the child”; (3) prospective litigants and their lawyers are now called upon to address the feasibility of using out-of-court family dispute resolution services; (4) measures to assist courts in addressing family violence have been formulated; and (5) a framework has been established for situations where one of the parents wishes to relocate a child of the marriage.

In addition to these significant changes in the rights and obligations of family members, there have been major developments in the evolution of new procedures and processes for resolving family disputes. It is now mandatory for litigating spouses to file financial and property statements to provide data that will speed up the settlement or adjudication of support and property disputes. Pretrial processes are also in place to help reduce or eliminate contentious issues. The discretionary jurisdiction of the court over costs is being exercised so as to promote the consensual resolution of issues. The consolidation of disputed issues in a single court proceeding has been facilitated by statutory changes and by amendments to provincial rules of court. These and other procedural changes have proved their worth, but because the system is adversarial — that is, separating or divorcing parents are perceived as being in opposition to each other — “fighting it out” is still perceived as an acceptable norm. Significant progress has, nevertheless, been made in moving away from adversarial litigation. In most provinces and territories, for example, the use of mediation as an alternative or supplement to litigation is encouraged under current legislation. Increasing use is being made of diverse alternatives to contested litigation. Principled negotiation that rejects positional bargaining in favour of interest-based bargaining has led to the development of collaborative law and mediation. The combined use of mediation and arbitration (med-arb) is beginning to find a place in the resolution of family disputes, especially parenting disputes in respect of which parenting coordination is becoming acceptable, especially in British Columbia. In numerous urban centres, Unified Family Courts have been established with a comprehensive jurisdiction over family law matters and limited access to support services that can deflect the need for lengthy and costly litigation. However, considerable room for improvement remains in the development of court-connected alternative processes to litigation that will aid in the constructive resolution of family disputes.

Looking to the potential for future developments in Canadian family law, it is already apparent that the use of Zoom and other videoconferencing platforms, instead of in-person court appearances, which has become common as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, will become an integral part of the litigation process, especially in pretrial situations, once the pandemic is under control.

It is noteworthy that lawyers are no longer being trained in law school or bar admission courses to be champions who ride into battle on behalf of their clients. Their role is that of the problem solver, albeit from a legal perspective. A new type of family law practitioner is slowly emerging in Canada. Following developments in the United States, some Canadian family law practitioners have opted into collaborative family law. This approach differs from the traditional practice of family law in that its practitioners focus on settlement to the exclusion of litigation. Outside experts will often be brought into the process to assist the parties with particular aspects of the negotiation and settlement process. Written agreements are executed to provide full disclosure and to waive discovery and recourse to litigation for a stipulated period of time. During this period, negotiations are undertaken by the clients and their lawyers in an effort to achieve a settlement. If no settlement is reached, the lawyers withdraw from the case and cannot participate in any subsequent litigation.

The strategic use of the internet, hard copy, and videos will become an integral part of the practice of family dispute resolution. With an increasing number of self-represented litigants, the unbundling of legal services will become widespread within the next few years. “Unbundling” signifies that the lawyer will provide information and input into a client’s case without assuming the responsibility to appear for that client in the courtroom or elsewhere. For the more traditional practitioner, hourly billing may be largely replaced in family law practice by block billings, whereby the lawyer will undertake the carriage of a case through its diverse possible stages, with a maximum global amount being payable at each stage.

With respect to parenting disputes, cultural diversity will attract greater attention than it has in the past. The processing of disputes relating to the treatment of Aboriginal children in residential schools underlines the need to more aggressively recognize cultural heritage in resolving parenting disputes on family breakdown. Children will become more actively involved in the dispute resolution process in cases where their parenting is at stake. The voice of the child will be heard more effectively in the formulation of parenting plans, and parenting plans involving extended family members will become common. Mediation may well become a preferred alternative to the traditional legal process for the majority of parents. Private arbitration may also become an integral part of family dispute resolution across Canada, and arbitration may ultimately become court connected, with recourse to a panel of screened arbitrators. Courts will, nevertheless, continue to play a major role in the resolution of family disputes. New processes for family dispute resolution are complementary to the legal system. They cannot exist without it. Their efficacy lies in the fact that the legal system is there to fall back on when no other options are available or the available options have proved wanting.

But courts themselves will face major changes in an age when 50 percent of all family litigants seek access to the courts without legal representation. As a first step, several provinces are striving to simplify their Family Law Rules so as to make them comprehensible to non-lawyers. The next step will be to develop improved resources to assist self-represented litigants. Videos that inform litigants how to fill in the requisite forms and what financial or other material to provide for the court are absolutely vital if courts are to cope with the increasing number of self-represented litigants. Court lists may need to be divided into cases where one or both of the parties are self-represented and those where both sides are independently legally represented. The assignment of judges may need to be restructured to cope with self-represented litigants. Judges must diversify their roles. They cannot be confined to an adjudicator’s role. They must become case managers in the fullest sense from the time when litigation commences. Judicial dispute resolution processes and court-connected mediation services should become the norm.

The private certificate system of legal aid is destined to disappear. It will initially be replaced by a family law clinic system. Ultimately, family legal aid clinics themselves will yield pride of place to community-based family dispute resolution centres, with ready access to a network of lawyers, psychologists, social workers, mediators, business valuators, actuaries, and a host of other paid professionals as well as paraprofessionals and volunteers. Multidisciplinary private law practices will emerge in the field of family conflict management and family dispute resolution.

1) Child Support Guidelines; Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines

Before terminating the analysis of the evolution of Canadian family law, it is vital to point out two fundamental changes that occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s. These changes, which will be especially useful to self-represented parents and spouses, relate to child support and spousal support.

On 1 May 1997, fundamental changes were made in the law relating to child support by the implementation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The former discretionary child support regime purported to apportion the child support obligation between both parents having regard to the proven needs of the child and the respective abilities of both parents to contribute towards the child’s needs. However, empirical data in Canada indicated that under this discretionary regime, a divorced primary caregiving parent was unlikely to receive more than 20 percent of the net income of the paying spouse and parent as spousal and/or child support. It is not surprising, therefore, that single mothers and their children represented a disproportionate percentage of the poverty classes under this discretionary regime. To remedy this situation, the Federal Child Support Guidelines came into force, and they were soon followed by changes being made by the provinces and territories. Pursuant to legislative and regulatory amendments, changes were introduced in the following key areas. First, child support paid under orders or agreements made on or after 1 May 1997 is no longer taxed as income of the recipient, nor is it tax deductible by the payor. Second, subject to certain specified exceptions, the Federal Child Support Guidelines provide fixed table amounts of monthly child support that help parents, lawyers, and judges to set fair and consistent child support in divorce cases. The table amounts take the new tax rules into account. Fixed table amounts of child support are designed to promote (1) simple and inexpensive administrative procedures for assessing the amount of child support; (2) consistency of amounts in comparable family situations; and (3) higher child support payments that more realistically reflect the actual costs of raising children. They are unlikely, however, to resolve the economic crises of separation and divorce for parents and children. The war on poverty requires more than piecemeal reform of child support rights and obligations, although the Guidelines may reduce the economic plight of primary caregiving parents to some degree. With the exception of Quebec, the provinces and territories have adopted Child Support Guidelines similar to the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The provincial and territorial Child Support Guidelines ordinarily apply to unmarried couples who separate or married couples who separate but do not seek a divorce.

The second fundamental change arises from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, which were first introduced in January 2005 and have now become a much relied upon guide for determining the appropriate amount and duration of spousal support to be paid upon separation or divorce. These Guidelines, unlike the Federal Child Support Guidelines, are not mandatory. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are informal, voluntary, and advisory. They are income-based guidelines and require careful attention not only to a spouse’s income but also to the spouse’s income-earning capacity. They have not been legislatively endorsed and are not legally binding, but they are highly persuasive in most Canadian courts, at least for the purpose of determining the appropriate amount of spousal support. The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines include different formulas for determining the appropriate amount and duration of spousal support for marriages with and marriages without dependent children. The Guidelines envisage that spouses, lawyers, and judges will use the ranges established by the prescribed formulas in the Guidelines as a check or litmus test to assess the positions of the parties at pretrial conferences or in argument at hearings and trials and that the formulas will assist judges in adjudication by providing a structural approach to the exercise of the judicial discretion conferred by the Divorce Act. Although the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines were originally devised with divorce in mind, courts also apply them in proceedings for spousal support that are governed by provincial or territorial legislation.

D. Sources of Family Law

The primary sources of family law in Canada are found in provincial, territorial, and federal statutes. In some subject areas, judge-made principles of law prevail, except in Quebec, where the Civil Code regulates family law other than divorce.

E. Legislative Powers Concerning Family Law

Exclusive legislative jurisdiction over “marriage and divorce” is conferred on the Parliament of Canada by section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which was formerly known as the British North America Act, 1867. By way of qualification of the above jurisdiction, section 92(12) grants exclusive power to the provincial legislatures to enact laws relating to the “solemnization of marriage.” Section 92(13) also confers exclusive authority on the provincial legislatures to make laws in relation to “property and civil rights in the province.” Subject to the overriding provisions of section 96, which controls the power of appointment and the jurisdictional competence of federally and provincially appointed judges, section 92(14) gives the provinces authority over the “administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.” This distribution of legislative powers is ratified by the Canada Act 1982 (c 22) (UK).

It is significant that the Parliament of Canada has never seen fit to exercise its potentially broad legislative authority over “marriage.” Since the enactment of the first comprehensive federal Divorce Act in 1968, a dual legislative system has existed in Canada. Where a dispute relating to spousal support, child support, or parenting is pursued in a court by divorcing or divorced spouses, the dispute is governed by federal divorce legislation, which is found in the current Divorce Act, as amended. Where, however, such claims arise independently of divorce or are pursued by unmarried couples, they are governed by provincial and territorial legislation.

F. Self-Represented Spouses and Parents

Self-represented spouses and parents are found in 50 percent of contested judicial proceedings. Self-represented litigants are governed by the same legal principles, rules of evidence, and standards of procedure as those applicable to litigants who are represented by counsel. Whether the decision respecting self-representation was made freely or was foisted upon a litigant as a result of financial limitations, judges must maintain their neutrality. They cannot enter the fray. Judges can canvass the issues, explain procedure, and in a general way describe what evidence may be required, but they cannot tell a self-represented litigant what specific evidence they must call or what they need to do. When self-represented parties are before the court, a judge should offer some assistance if needed, especially in family matters. Two competing interests must be balanced. First and foremost, the judge cannot be an advocate for a party. At the same time, the trial must be run as efficiently and fairly as possible. This may require the judge to offer guidance to a self-represented party. The appropriate balance falls within the judge’s discretion. The following guidelines have been judicially endorsed:

1) A judge should ensure as far as is possible that procedural fairness is afforded to all parties, whether represented or appearing in person, in order to ensure a fair trial.

2) A judge should inform the litigant in person of the manner in which the trial is to proceed, the order of calling witnesses, and the right that he or she has to cross-examine the witnesses.

3) A judge should explain to the litigant in person any procedures relevant to the litigation.

4) A judge should generally assist the litigant in person by taking basic information from witnesses called, such as name, address, and occupation.

5) If a change in the normal procedure is requested by the other parties, such as the calling of witnesses out of turn, the judge may, if he or she considers that there is any serious possibility of such a change causing any injustice to a litigant in person, explain to the unrepresented party the effect and perhaps the undesirability of the interposition of witnesses and his or her right to object to that course.

6) A judge may provide general advice to a litigant in person that he or she has the right to object to inadmissible evidence and to inquire whether he or she so objects. A judge is not obliged to provide advice on each occasion when particular questions or documents arise.

7) If a question is asked, or evidence is sought to be tendered in respect of which the litigant has a possible claim of privilege, the judge must inform the litigant of his or her rights.

8) A judge should attempt to clarify the substance of the submissions of the litigant in person, especially in cases where, because of garrulous or misconceived advocacy, the substantive issues are either ignored, given little attention, or obfuscated.

9) Where the interests of justice and the circumstances of the case require it, a judge may draw attention to the law applied by the court in determining issues before it, question witnesses, identify applications or submissions that ought to be put to the court, suggest procedural steps that may be taken by a party, and clarify the particulars of the orders sought by a litigant in person or the bases for such orders.

The above list is not intended to be exhaustive, and there may well be other interventions that a judge may properly make without giving rise to an apprehension of bias. See Canadian Judicial Council, Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (September 2006), online: www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_other_PrinciplesStatement_
2006_en.pdf, which has been cited with approval in several Canadian judicial decisions that can be found online at canlii.org.

For additional information that is available online to assist self-represented litigants, see the various provincial and territorial court sites and online resources provided by provincial departments of the Attorney General, which can also be found online at canlii.org. See also the National Self-Represented Litigants Project, CanLII Connects. As to the awarding of costs to successful self-represented litigants, see the judgment of Pazaratz J, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in MAL v RHM, 2018 ONSC 2542 (CanLII).

G. Questions and Answers

Q. What online resources are available free of charge to assist people who need to obtain information about Canadian family law?

A. There is an infinite variety of online resources that address questions arising in family law disputes. Some resources are reliable; others are not. Reliable online sites have been established by governmental agencies. Perhaps the best-known online site is that provided by the federal Department of Justice, which has a specific section dealing with family law. For example, the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are both dealt with on this site, and the practicality of separated and divorced parents producing a parenting plan is also addressed. Where the annual parental income can be readily ascertained, the Department of Justice has provided a child support calculator that specifies the amount of child support to be paid to a primary caregiving parent. A non-governmental online means of calculating both child support and spousal support can be found at mysupportcalculator.ca. Detailed practical information on diverse family law topics is also provided online by provincial departments of the Attorney General and on various court sites. Many provinces currently include trial and appellate family law judgments on their websites in addition to providing information about relevant court services and resources. See, for example, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. The best online resource that is available free of charge is produced by the Canadian Legal Information Institute at canlii.org. Reliable information that will be of special interest to self-represented litigants can be found online under the National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP), which seeks to promote responses to the challenges facing the very large number of Canadians who proceed in court without counsel. An especially valuable review of family law in British Columbia is the book JP Boyd on Family Law, which is available online at CanLIIDocs 3727.

Q. What additional reliable information is available?

A. A wide variety of books and online services dealing with Canadian family law can be purchased from established law publishers. These include Irwin Law, which publishes Payne and Payne, Canadian Family Law, 9th edition (2022), and Payne and Payne, Child Support Guidelines in Canada, 2022. They also include LexisNexis Canada, Carswell, and Butterworths Canada.

Q. How will artificial intelligence resources affect the administration of Canadian family law?

A. The use of artificial intelligence resources to resolve family law disputes is inevitable, but it is difficult to predict how they will affect the administration of Canadian family law by lawyers and the courts. Some insights into what artificial intelligence resources have to offer can be obtained on the internet by accessing ChatGPT, which is a chatbot developed by OpenAI that was launched in November 2022. It is quite conceivable that artificial intelligence resources will revolutionize the practice and administration of Canadian family law in the foreseeable future, but it will take some time to achieve this.