The Justice Review Task Force (JRTF) was established on the initiative of the Law Society of BC, in March 2002. The objective of the JRTF is to identify a wide range of potential reform initiatives that may help make the justice system become more responsive, accessible and cost-effective. The Task Force has begun to identify projects which it wishes to explore as a matter of priority.

As it proceeds to explore certain reforms in more detail, the Task Force will be mindful of the importance of benefiting from the expertise and gaining the support of those who participate in the justice system, not just those represented on the committee. To that end, the following principles will guide Task Force work:

  • Those with a significant interest in the issue being explored should be involved in the process;

  • Involvement should be meaningful. Those who are interested in being involved in the discussions should have access to relevant information and the opportunity to participate effectively throughout the further development and implementation of any reform initiative;

  • The process for development of the reforms should be flexible. How a plan is developed may vary with each initiative;

  • The people involved in designing the plan may be as important as the design itself. Plans for the development of a particular reform idea should be designed with, not for, those who use or are affected by them.

The Task Force has published on its web site a list of potential justice system reforms that may be worthy of further exploration. From that list the Task Force has already begun to identify projects which it wishes to explore as a matter of priority.

Unified Family Court
The first such possibility to be explored was Unified Family Court. On October 7, 2002, in anticipation of an announcement of federal UFC funding, the JRTF released a background and discussion paper on the topic of Unified Family Court. The paper had the following purposes:

  • to serve as a general orientation to the topic of Unified Family Court;

  • to identify issues requiring consideration; and

  • to begin to collect the information necessary to weigh the merits of having a Unified Family Court in British Columbia.

Over the subsequent months, the JRTF conducted research and consulted with various members of the judiciary and the family bar in order to determine the advantages and disadvantages of implementing UFCs, and to assess the judiciary and bar’s support for such a move. At the same time, the Ministry of Attorney General engaged in a series of discussions with the federal government to determine the exact nature of the UFC initiative, including the funding conditions.

In the Spring of 2003, the JRTF determined that further analysis, consultation and examination was required in order to successfully implement any changes to the existing family law system in BC. The JRTF concluded that the two year timeframe dictated by the federal funding formula for the implementation of UFCs may not allow for a thorough consideration of range of complex issues that would need to be resolved for UFCs to be successful. Nor is it clear that federal financial support for UFC would be sufficient at this time.

While not abandoning the prospect of UFCs, the JRTF is establishing the Family Justice Reform Working Group to complete the research, analysis and consultation required to assist the Task Force in determining the answers to fundamental questions about the delivery of family justice in BC.

Family Justice Reform Working Group Membership and Mandate
Previous Studies and Reforms
Since 1976, 16 reports on the family justice system in BC have been prepared by a variety of committees, commissions, working groups, practitioners and consultants. (A summary of these reports will ultimately be provided to the Task Force members). Each of these reports identified problems with the family justice system and recommended courses of action. Generally:

  • Most reports are based on consultation with members of the bar, with parents who had been through the justice system, and with community agencies and interest groups;

  • A common and consistent conclusion has been that courts are very often the wrong forum for addressing the emotionally charged issues facing separating families. Litigation is often protracted, expensive and focused on the rights of the parties rather than the best interests of the child;

  • All reports recommended non-adversarial approaches to resolving family disputes, including mediation services and better information for separating parents, with special consideration in cases where family violence is a factor;

  • There were also calls for improved services after an initial resolution was reached, better enforcement of support orders and the provision of supervised access services;

  • Finally, many reports recommended greater access to services in rural areas, for non-English speaking and for aboriginal people.

Many of the recommendations from these reports have already been implemented, including the establishment of family justice centres, parenting after separation programs and the strengthening of maintenance enforcement. While there is no doubt that there is a broader range of services available to families going through separation and divorce today than years ago, and that the culture of dispute resolution in the family area has changed dramatically over the last 15 years, many professionals in the field believe that more can and should be done to fully realize the vision flowing from these reports.

These reports represent a wealth of information and insight into our family justice system. The Family Law Working Group should build on and incorporate the research and findings of these reports.