THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 4, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:30 a.m. [ET] to consider the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is David Arnot. I’m a Saskatchewan senator and chair of this committee.
I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Senator Pat Duncan, Yukon.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Senator Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Good morning. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you. We are meeting to continue our study on the subject of Bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, specifically the elements contained in Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Nick Covelli, Deputy Chief Administrator of Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada; Ms. Edith Bramwell, Chairperson of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board; and Professor Nicholas Bala, Family Law, Queen’s University, by video conference.
We will begin with opening remarks before we move to questions from the members. We will start with Mr. Covelli, followed by Ms. Bramwell and then Professor Bala. The floor is yours individually for five minutes. Please proceed, Mr. Covelli.
Nick Covelli, Deputy Chief Administrator, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada: Thank you. Good morning, honourable committee chair and members. My name is Nick Covelli, and I am the Deputy Chief Administrator of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, or the ATSSC. I’m pleased to appear before you to take part in your pre-study of Part 5, Division 31 of Bill C-15.
I would like to begin by briefly describing the role and mandate of the ATSSC. The ATSSC was created on November 1, 2014, with the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.
The ATSSC provides support services and facilities to several administrative tribunals through a single, integrated service point. The tribunals that we support are listed in a schedule of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act. By consolidating the resources of these tribunals, the ATSSC optimizes capacity and ensures access to the specialized services these tribunals require. These include registry services, research and analysis and legal services, as well as internal services such as human resources, IT and finance.
The ATSSC’s mission is to equip the tribunals with the resources and expertise needed to deliver fair, impartial and efficient justice to the Canadian public.
One of the tribunals in the ATSSC Act is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. Pursuant to acts of the Yukon legislature, members of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board are also members of the Yukon Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Yukon Teachers Labour Relations Board. Ms. Bramwell, who is next to me, is the chairperson of these three boards.
Moreover, long before the ATSSC was created, the predecessor of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board had a cost-recovery arrangement with the Government of Yukon for the work the federal board did in support of the Yukon boards. However, when the ATSSC was created in 2014, the Yukon boards were not added to the schedule of the ATSSC Act; only the federal board was. The ATSSC did continue to provide support services to the two Yukon boards and recovered the related costs from the Government of Yukon in accordance with a memorandum of understanding.
The proposed amendments to the ATSSC Act will make the support we provide to the Yukon boards more clearly defined. The proposed amendments will create Schedule 2 to the ATSSC Act, which will allow the Minister of Justice to add territorial bodies to the schedule once conditions are met.
Specifically, the proposed amendments will provide a legislative vehicle to recover all costs incurred by the ATSSC from the Government of Yukon for support services provided to the two Yukon boards. This will also extend to other territorial bodies as required and once conditions are met. This will be done if the minister is satisfied that the Yukon will cover the ATSSC’s costs. Therefore, the proposed legislation will not increase the expenses of the Government of Canada.
To conclude, these changes will strengthen our ability to provide stable, efficient and accountable support to territorial bodies, including the two Yukon boards.
Thank you again for having me this morning. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Bramwell, please proceed.
Edith Bramwell, Chairperson, Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, or FPSLREB, is the labour board for federal public sector employers and bargaining units. In addition, we have a federal mandate with respect to two Yukon public service labour boards, as you’ve just heard. This complex and unusual Yukon mandate has endured for more than five decades over the various iterations of the federal public service labour boards that have existed since the 1960s. The proposed ATSSC Act amendments are of direct relevance to this little-known aspect of our mandate.
As part of long-standing federal-territorial agreements, the federal government supports an arrangement whereby the Yukon Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Yukon Teachers Labour Relations Board are populated by FPSLREB members and are chaired by the FPSLREB chairperson, the role which I currently occupy. This arrangement is set out in two pieces of Yukon legislation: the Yukon’s Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Education Labour Relations Act. Those acts were drafted as mirror images of the federal labour legislation of the day. The federal and territorial acts remain highly similar to each other, even 50 years later.
Like the FPSLREB and its predecessors, the Yukon boards are independent, quasi-judicial boards. However, the federal board handles a much higher volume than the Yukon boards. Files related to the Yukon boards amount to less than 1% of the FPSLREB’s total files.
The concurrent tenure of our members as Yukon members flow automatically from our federal Governor-in-Council appointments and the Yukon legislation. FPSLREB members may hold concurrent roles as territorial board members pursuant to section 5(2) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.
The two Yukon public service boards oversee Yukon collective bargaining regimes. Yukon public service board members determine matters, including essential services disputes, bargaining unit scope and exclusions, duty of fair representation complaints and work stoppage disputes. Yukon adjudicators, mediators and conciliators, who are separately appointed by me as chairperson of the Yukon boards, deal primarily with collective agreement grievances.
Administrative support services for all three boards have always been provided federally. These support services are currently exclusively provided by the ATSSC, as you’ve heard, and were previously exclusively provided by our boards’ predecessors.
The ATSSC Act mandates it to provide administrative support services to the tribunals listed in that act. The FPSLREB, as of this moment, is listed in that act, and the Yukon boards are not. Despite this, the ATSSC has provided support services for the Yukon boards since its creation.
The Government of Yukon and the ATSSC have always reached agreements contained in memoranda of understanding for cost recovery. The proposed amendment reflects this long-standing practice.
Despite its concurrent roles, the FPSLREB’s mandate comes exclusively from the federal government. It was always, and remains, the federal government’s prerogative to discontinue the arrangement, providing that the Yukon’s public service labour boards are populated by FPSLREB members, should it ever wish to do so. The proposed amendment does not change this. The proposed amendment brings clarity and certainty to the provision of the administrative services that support this long-standing arrangement between the federal and Yukon governments.
I would be pleased to address any questions or concerns that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. Professor Bala, please go ahead.
Nicholas Bala, Professor, Family Law, Queen’s University, as an individual: Good morning, chair and all members of the committees. Thank you for having me here today. I’m going to be speaking about the proposal for the increase in the number of judges in the Unified Family Court, or UFC. My main area of research has been in family law. I have written very extensively on issues related to family law, family justice and young offenders. I have written many books and articles, and my work has been cited by all levels of courts in Canada, including the Supreme Court. I have had the privilege of appearing before both Senate and House of Commons committees on a number of occasions and have had a contribution to law reform in Canada.
Today I will be speaking about what we call the Unified Family Court proposal. In the second segment starting at 11:30, there will be more speakers speaking in favour of the Unified Family Courts. This issue is, in some ways, very simple: Having more Unified Family Court judges will improve access to justice and will help parents and children have better outcomes.
Having said that, there is actually a fair amount of complexity around some of the details, in particular, in Canada because of the federal and provincial jurisdictions and the overlap. There is variation in how this proposal will work in different provinces, but in Ontario, in particular, there is a need for more family court judges.
Historically, the courts in Canada have been characterized by having a generalist jurisdiction at a superior court level of federally appointed judges, as well as having a second tier of judges in the so-called provincial or territorial courts that have often had a more limited jurisdiction and, frankly, dealt with people with more limited means. That resulted in two tiers of justice, duplication, inefficiency, delay, the possibility of inconsistent or even conflicting decisions and a lack of having specialized judges deal with the complexities of family law and family life.
In many parts of Canada, outside of Quebec — and if there are questions, I can certainly talk about the Quebec model, which is quite different, and Alberta and British Columbia, which are different, as well — we are moving toward having Unified Family Courts that have judges appointed and paid for by the federal government, but with support and a range of services provided by the provincial governments. In Ontario, about half the province in terms of population has a Unified Family Court, including where I live in Kingston, but a significant portion of the province does not have a Unified Family Court. In particular, in the Greater Toronto Area, there continue to be these two tiers of family justice, which is inefficient and, as I say, unfair. It often results in delays in the court process and sometimes results in judges who do not have the experience to deal effectively with family law cases. This is a particular concern at the pre-trial stage, where almost all cases are actually resolved.
We have been moving toward Unified Family Courts. The first Unified Family Court was established in Hamilton in 1977. It was intended to be a pilot project. I think it was very successful. There was an initial report in 1987 known as the Zuber report, recommending its expansion. It has slowly been expanding across the province. Every time it expands, the federal government has to authorize the appointment of more federal judges. I realize it is a federal-provincial issue in that the federal government is paying a little more for judicial salaries, but it resulted in enormous overall savings to the justice system and improves access to justice, helps deal with Legal Aid issues and provides support services.
I will speak now just for a moment or two in a general way: Having Unified Family Courts means the judges are experienced and can deal with cases in a better and faster way, which reduces delays. The delays in the family justice system across Canada, especially in Toronto, are enormous. That places great stress on parents, children and families. We also need more judicial case management, which is much easier to arrange if there is a Unified Family Court.
This proposal is very important and should be supported. That does not mean that it would resolve all the issues in the family justice system; for example, there are issues around cases where there are concurrent criminal and family proceedings. We have the Integrated Domestic Violence Court right now in Toronto, and that should be expanded. I can certainly identify areas where I think we need more changes.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now move to questions from the senators.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for being here. Professor Bala, it is very interesting to see you here. I recall that your textbook was the family law textbook in law school. It probably still is even these many years after I finished school. Although I did not take family law in law school, that was an area that I did a significant amount of practice in when I did start practising. Thank you for all your work in that area.
Given your vast experience, I want to address my questions to you. Right now, as of December 1, they put out a new table, and across Canada, there are 39 vacant federally appointed judicial positions. That includes 12 in Ontario, having just looked up that number. Given that, they are right now allocating judges, and I am sure they are probably from the general division — I’m not sure if that’s what you call it in Ontario; that’s what we called it in Saskatchewan — into the Unified Family Court.
Wouldn’t it have been better if the government had ensured, and would continue to ensure, that those vacancies are filled in a timely way to increase the overall capacity of the courts rather than just shifting judicial salaries and positions from one area to another?
Mr. Bala: Senator, thank you for your kind words about the textbook, which I continue to write in various editions.
One of the issues is that family justice is often a poor second cousin to the rest of the justice system. Understandably, criminal justice receives a lot of attention. You mentioned the word “general division.” There is almost constantly changing terminology, whether it is a general division in the high courts — the Superior Court — but there is a level of judges appointed by the federal government, which we could technically call “section 96 courts.” Those judges historically have had a general jurisdiction.
This proposal is intended to increase the number of federally appointed judges, particularly in the family area.
I completely agree with you — and I think everyone does — that we, first, need to ensure that vacancies are filled as quickly as possible. I am not an expert in how it has been going and why, but my sense is that 39 is a significant number of vacancies. But it has been higher at some points in the past, so we seem to be moving in the right direction.
Should we keep going? Absolutely. Should we get there more quickly? Yes. Should we increase the number of judges? That’s part of the issue: Our society is becoming more complex, and the Charter is raising issues of the requirements for trial within a reasonable time. All of those things contribute to delays in the justice system, which, on the criminal side, means that some cases are being dismissed for lack of trial within a reasonable time. On the family side, this results in enormous stress on families, parents and children. That has long-term social costs. Delay is not just an immediate issue; it has a long-term effect on families. In some cases, it contributes to family violence issues or family violence issues not being addressed effectively, not making sound, child-focused plans in a timely way.
I couldn’t agree with you more on the vacancies. They need to be filled. You can have someone from the Department of Justice explain what they are doing, but it is a very important issue.
Senator Batters: Absolutely. We are trying to get the minister, but we will see if he makes some time for us here.
Of course, Jordan has the vast majority of the media attention on criminal cases and their significant consequences, but as you said, there are major consequences for family law cases with delays. Given your experience, what kind of family law cases would you say are most affected by delays? Will this increase in the number of judges allocated to family courts have an impact directly on those kinds of files?
Mr. Bala: One of the things about the Unified Family Court is that it is intended to deal with both what we call private divorce, separation between unmarried partners, and child protection. To me, the most important cases are those where the future of children is being decided and those that deal with family violence issues. Both are delayed as a result of the backlog in the courts. In some cases, that results in victims not being adequately protected and not getting the court orders they need. Certainly, children are being left in limbo and in a very stressful situation while their situations are left unresolved. Those are the most pressing cases.
Having said that, economic issues in family cases are also important, particularly, dependent spouses who are mainly, but by no means exclusively, women who are being left without adequate support. There is no question that delay is one of the biggest problems in our family justice system.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Bala. You touched on the fact that Quebec was a bit different. I saw that legislation came into effect last June to create a Unified Family Tribunal within the Quebec court. This is different from the youth court that we already have in Quebec. How is this court different? These courts are relatively new. They’re even newer in Quebec than in Ontario.
[English]
Mr. Bala: Yes. On one hand, I would not hold myself as an expert on what is happening in Quebec. On the other hand, I probably know more about Quebec than any other English-language family law scholar in Canada. I have been privileged to work with scholars, mental health professionals and law professors in Quebec. Quebec has had a distinct justice system, in particular, a distinct family justice system, in many ways. It’s one which, in some aspects, Canada can learn from on issues like mediation services and the role of children in courts. Quebec has done more to ensure the voices of children whose parents are in dispute are heard in a safe, effective and child-focused way. Quebec is a good model.
Having said that, as you alluded to, in Quebec, there has been la Chambre de la jeunesse, or the youth court, which is a provincial court that deals with both child welfare cases and youth justice cases. That is unique in Canada. There is a lot to be said for it with respect to dealing with that structure. Until now, all the private law cases have been dealt with in the Superior Court of Justice. My understanding is that there is variation, so there are some locations, especially larger centres, in Quebec where there is more of a specialization and administration on the family side and other places where the family cases are just dealt with along with everything else, and there is less specialization. The move in Quebec is also to have more of a specialized and UFC structure, which is also very welcome.
My understanding is that this particular proposal does not deal with that court, but the issue of delay, which is related to a lack of judges, is a concern everywhere in Canada, as well as in Quebec. Frankly, it’s also sometimes related to their lack of expertise. We are very fortunate in this country to have a very strong judiciary on the whole at the trial and appeal levels. It doesn’t mean I agree with every decision, but I feel very comfortable living in Canada compared to almost any other country in the world with our process of appointment, and although there are vacancies, the issues of delay occur everywhere in the world.
However, when we have generalist judges who don’t have a family law background dealing with family cases, the biggest concern is that the front end of the system — what is sometimes called conferencing and motions — where the judge has only an hour to deal with a family matter, delays can result. If the judge is an experienced family lawyer who deals with family cases on a regular basis, they can often deal with those cases very effectively and move the family forward to some sort of resolution and help them settle the case. The primary thing we think about is judges deciding cases. In family law, it is the settlement function that is very important. The trial function is also important. It requires a specific set of skills.
The problem with a generalist judge coming in to deal with a family case for an hour is that it takes the judge an hour just to gain a sense of the situation. They might say, “This is a very complicated matter. You better come back in three months, and we’ll have another judge try it.” Maybe you’ll have a trial, but because of the trial schedule, it is going to take a year and a half to come to trial. If you have an experienced family judge dealing with a case, they can often help people move it forward and sometimes settle.
Another aspect of this is having consistent case management because there are certainly complex issues that need to be dealt with. Many are at the provincial and territorial level.
Senator Simons: I had some questions for Mr. Covelli and Ms. Bramwell. I note that in the act, it says that the Minister of Justice must “be of the opinion” that there is a satisfactory funding arrangement for the provision of support services, but the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, or ATSSC, does not state what qualifies as a satisfactory arrangement. I’m wondering if you can shed a little light on what that would be and what the legal import of the phrase “be of the opinion” is.
Mr. Covelli: Of course, I can’t speak for the minister and what he would consider to be sufficient, but I can share that we have been in discussions with the Government of Yukon to determine what would be a fair cost-recovery model, and that information will be shared, according to my understanding, with the minister to inform the minister’s decision of whether he or she is satisfied that a sufficient funding mechanism is in place.
To provide a little bit more information or insight on that, we are talking to the Yukon government about a cost-recovery model. For example, if one of our registry officers spends 10% of their time working on Yukon board files, then we will, in principle, recover 10% of their salary from the Yukon government.
Senator Simons: You have both specifically spoken about Yukon today. The legislation foresees the possibility of this same model working for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Can you tell me a bit about how those jurisdictions are now run and whether I’m correct in my understanding that they would all eventually be part of this system, or is this really just for Yukon?
Ms. Bramwell: Those jurisdictions in general are addressed by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CCIRB, in terms of their unionized workers.
The language “territorial” has existed in the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act for the last 10 years without any impact on the number of boards, which are served by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, or FPSLREB, concurrently.
To some extent, that language may simply be consistent with language which already exists legislatively, but I also want to be clear that it does open up the possibility for proposals whereby other labour boards could be created by territorial legislatures and enter into the same kind of cost-sharing arrangement that the Yukon boards have had in one form or another for almost 60 years now.
Senator Simons: I would imagine that 60 years ago, the idea of a Zoom call was literally science fiction.
Is it simpler now? Sixty years ago, if somebody in Yukon needed something, they would have had to go to Whitehorse. Now, not so much, perhaps. What is being done remotely and on video now versus —
Ms. Bramwell: Certainly , all case management and a large amount of settlement are done remotely. Some hearings are still done in person where that is most appropriate.
The issue is not around distance. I don’t want to put myself in the minds of people who were the architects of this arrangement 60 years ago, but one of the problems that you see clearly when you think about the Yukon constituting its own labour relations board is the extremely small number of cases. The populations of these bargaining units are small. They still have constitutionally protected collective bargaining rights, but they are small. For them to have a registrar, mediators and a lawyer, it would be very challenging, because there is simply not enough work to constitute full-time, and barely to constitute part-time, positions.
As I mentioned, they are 1% or so of our file load for both boards — the teachers and the public service.
Senator Simons: It’s a bit of a neocolonialist structure, in which you have people who don’t know the community and don’t know the people coming in to make these decisions without necessarily having all the cultural context.
Ms. Bramwell: The people who make decisions about collective agreement disputes are adjudicators appointed by the board. There is nothing to stop them from being from the community. The board itself takes the issue that you have raised very seriously, and we engage in — that has increased since I’ve been chairperson — in-depth client consultation with the Yukon boards. It’s always bilateral, on a regular basis.
Certainly, if the Yukon government ever were to decide, “We want to bring these boards home,” that would be their prerogative. We know that decision might be made one day.
In the most recent discussions I have had with the Yukon stakeholders, both unions and the Yukon government, they have made it clear that they think that the services that the board provides, whether through the ATSSC or the decision-making dispute resolution services that the board itself provides, are still an advantage for them.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Professor Bala, for your evidence here today and the information you have shared. We heard similar information and evidence yesterday. I note that the Canadian Bar Association will be here later in the panel.
This relates to your description in statements relating to the Unified Family Courts, or UFC. For all intents and purposes, everything that you have shared makes a lot of sense in its grounding.
You mentioned a report from the 1980s. I heard you say Zuber. Did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Bala: Yes. It was a report by Justice Zuber about the administration of justice, but he specifically looked at the Unified Family Court and did a report on it.
One of the issues about Unified Family Courts is what is happening. Quebec, as I say, has a distinct system, and they are moving on this. Alberta and British Columbia, for a variety of reasons that I am happy to address — as you say, the Canadian Bar Association and others will be speaking shortly — have not yet moved on Unified Family Courts. I know that in those provinces, there is a feeling from many — you’ll hear from the Canadian Bar Association itself — that it would be helpful to move toward Unified Family Courts.
Family law, in general, requires a high degree of federal-provincial co-operation. In fact, the remarks we just heard about the administrative tribunal, almost everything in Canada — to do with the justice system in particular — requires a high degree of co-operation between federal and provincial governments. The more they can get along and work constructively, the better things are, but there are also internal tensions within provinces.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. The information you are sharing is valuable. I also have limited time, so I want to be efficient and use what I’ve been given to take advantage of your time here today.
I want to specifically ask you this question: Why is it that B.C. does not have Unified Family Courts if they are as efficient as you’ve described and there are so many rewards and benefits that families ultimately reap in instances where children are involved, as you suggested? My clear question to you is this: Why is B.C. not on board with this?
Mr. Bala: Thank you. That is a good question. You really have to ask the Minister of Justice in British Columbia and the British Columbia Bar Association for an answer. This has been a long-standing issue.
British Columbia has moved very far in its family justice system. They have made enormous progress, in my view, in the last few years. They have given many more resources to family justice and made some changes in the family justice system, and, again, some of them would be models for what is happening elsewhere, but they haven’t yet moved on this one.
It’s not just hearing from the Minister of Justice. It’s also from the Chief Justice of the provinces, who usually are not witnesses at Senate committees, but there are ways of getting their views.
There has been some resistance. Partly, it comes back to money, in that it’s not just the judicial salaries, but it’s also the restructuring of the courts and provision of support services.
One of the things you’ll hear from The Advocates’ Society is that it’s not just the judges, although it’s a significant factor. Where we have Unified Family Courts, it also facilitates providing important support services. Are there family mediators who are not lawyers there helping people to settle cases? Are there social workers there helping to provide assessments and interventions?
Again, B.C. is moving and has done, in some ways, a lot of work, but it would certainly help, in my view, if they had Unified Family Courts there. It would be very helpful to have witnesses from British Columbia saying why they aren’t doing more, but it does require the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments and the judiciaries in those provinces.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Professor Bala.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: My question is for Mr. Covelli, but also for the other witnesses if they would like to chime in.
Mr. Covelli, I want to talk about the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act. You’re in a good position to shed some light on this topic for the committee. This act ensures that all the tribunals listed in the schedule to the act fall under the same administrative service, in order to align and perhaps standardize management practices. How does this pooling of administrative services square with the territories’ aspirations for self-government and, on a broader level, with Canada’s commitments to self-determination and shared governance with the majority Indigenous peoples in the North? Thank you.
Mr. Covelli: Thank you for the question, senator.
[English]
One of the advantages of pooling all the resources into the ATSSC is to develop economies of scale. These economies of scale allow the ATSSC to support a dozen federal and territorial bodies in a very efficient manner. For example, if one tribunal is having a peak in its workload and another tribunal or other tribunals are having a decline or steady state in their volume of work, then the ATSSC can shift resources around to where they are needed most. We’re able to cross-train employees and generally have a very efficient way of supporting tribunals.
It is also very important to emphasize that we are just a support service. We respect the independence of the adjudicators of each of the tribunals and boards we support, such as Chairperson Bramwell. They are the ones who make the decisions. We just provide the registry, legal and other support services and facilities that they need to do their jobs effectively.
At the same time, obviously, we always fully respect the jurisdiction of the territorial governments as well. Our relationship with our Yukon counterparts has been very good. We have had very constructive discussions on how we’re going to make the cost recovery go forward and work very effectively. Were there any points you wanted to add?
Ms. Bramwell: I would indicate that it’s not a new arrangement that we are talking about. This is something that has endured for a long time. I certainly understand the question about taking this board home, back to the Yukon, but ultimately, that’s a decision for the Yukon to make. If the Yukon wants to do that, it’s open to the Yukon to discontinue the arrangement at any time. It’s through an operation of the Yukon legislation that we serve our concurrent role. The decision is with them, and they will chart the course that they believe is right within their own legislature.
Senator Tannas: My questions are for Professor Bala. I want to show my ignorance here, and I’m looking for a tutorial.
I have a follow-up question, so please explain in relatively few sentences. What is the overlap that you referred to between the federal and provincial jurisdiction as it relates to family justice? Where is this overlap?
Mr. Bala: Senator, by the way, your ignorance is understandable in the sense that it’s a very challenging issue for my family law students. We spend at least two hours on it, and they are still confused at the end of it.
Part of the complexity is that there is a substantive jurisdiction. There is the federal jurisdiction for marriage and divorce, the Divorce Act; there is provincial-territorial jurisdiction for different provinces — a family law regime, property regime, child support, parenting; and there is also the overlap between the courts. There are so-called section 96 courts, the federally appointed judges who have jurisdiction over certain matters. In particular, under the Constitution only a federally appointed judge can grant a divorce and deal with matters related to the divorce, whereas a provincially appointed judge can deal with certain other matters.
It’s a complex overlap of both the substantive jurisdiction and the court structure, and also the fact that the provinces have responsibility for the administration of justice, and the federal government has responsibility for the appointment of judges. It requires, especially in the family area, a high degree of co‑operation.
There was a period of time historically when the federal government and the provinces were not really talking or were at cross-purposes. There were very significant problems with the overlap and inconsistency. Now there is a higher degree of co‑operation. For example, on the issue of child support, we have, in theory, a federal law that provides governed child support for people getting a divorce. But they have said, if you are in Quebec, you will be governed by a different child support regime than in the rest of Canada; that is the regime of the Province of Quebec, which is quite different. In some cases, it results in more child support; in some cases, it results in less. Even though it’s — in theory — federal law, it adopts the provincial regime, which, on the whole, is an effective way of having co-operative federalism. It results in inconsistency between jurisdictions, but it’s a much more effective and efficient system within the province.
Family law, to some extent, is locally rooted. Although there are enormous issues when people move provinces and countries, they typically live in one place. Of course, there are problems when they separate and one moves to another province. But the fact that they live in one place requires benefits from having a more consistent and coherent approach.
In two minutes, you received a two-hour lecture. I hope that helps.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. That’s great. Actually, I had one other question, Ms. Bramwell. I thought I heard you say in your opening remarks that the Yukon could decide to patriate everything back, but that there was some condition that carried on that whoever was in the Yukon tribunal had to be members of the federal union. Was that right? Did I understand that right? Okay, good. Thank you.
Ms. Bramwell: The FPSLREB is created by federal legislation. Our enabling act is a federal act. The Yukon legislature has laws which deem whoever sits in my position to be the chair of their boards. The Yukon legislature could choose to amend that legislation and repeal it at any time. They have all the power to do that. I would still be the chair of the federal board because the federal legislation would be unchanged.
Similarly, the federal government could decide that whatever the Yukon legislation says, they are not content to have the chair of their federal public service board continue with that mandate that the Yukon board would like it to have. The federal government could indicate, if it chose to do so, that the arrangement was at an end. But the unions have no say about that. Well, they have the say in the sense that they can give their opinion and have that opinion heard, but they have no authority over those arrangements.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: I would like to express my thanks to Ms. Bramwell and Mr. Covelli for their presentation today and to my colleagues for the questions about the Yukon.
Having been involved in this for some time, as a member of the legislature and now as a senator looking at the federal legislation, this is really co-operative federalism. One point that hasn’t been made is that the necessity, in part, for leaning, borrowing and accessing the services of the federal board is the small jurisdiction. Neighbours can be the head of the union and the head of the Public Service Commission and have children on the same hockey team. It makes a difference to be able to access independent services like this.
The arrangement has existed for 60 years, and it’s important to continue that service. I note that the Yukon does pay for these services, and that it’s a truly mutually beneficial co-operative federalism that enables us to do this. I respectfully request and am grateful for the committee’s support for this particular amendment. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I’ll go back to Professor Bala because we have your considered expertise here. You briefly mentioned in your opening remarks something about case management, so that may well be your answer, but I want to give you more time to note it.
My question is this: If you were to recommend one priority measure to governments in Canada — not just the federal government but provincial governments as well — to improve the functioning of family courts, what would it be?
Mr. Bala: That’s a very tough question. On a philosophical level, it would be to give family justice more recognition and emphasis and recognize its importance for the long-term well-being of Canada because our children are our future.
Certainly, one change would be to case management, which is not solely, actually, either a federal or provincial issue. Indeed, it requires the co-operation of the judiciary as much as anything and perhaps more. It would be a very important and effective way to deal with many issues. Even in Ontario, where we have UFCs, we don’t necessarily have case management.
Like a lot of issues, it requires a number of players and institutions to come together and to be on the same page. Co‑operative federalism, or the co-operation between institutions, is critical. The bar, the bench, the federal government and the provincial governments have significant roles. There are other professional organizations as well. Mediators have a national organization, for example. They all have to come together, to some extent.
On the other hand, each institution can play a role. We had significant amendments to the Divorce Act in 2021. This goes back. It requires the co-operation of everybody, but the federal government probably has more of a role than others. We saw that with the Divorce Act amendments in 2021, which have helped push the system a little bit to have more of a child focus, more of a recognition of the importance of family violence and the need to deal with it more effectively, and take into account, for example, the wishes of children.
It does require the other institutions to come along. We see a very interesting interplay in the legislation between our legislative action and the courts. We had a major reform in 2021 to the Divorce Act, and the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a very significant decision in 2022 that referred to the amendments and said that those amendments pertaining to issues of family violence require more action by judges. Again, we have a certain model of the justice system in which the Supreme Court of Canada speaks and other judges follow along. To some extent, there is an interaction between the trial judges and the appellate courts. It requires many players to come along.
Generally, I feel cautiously optimistic that we have seen progress. What is before you today is a small piece of a very complex puzzle.
It’s great to say, “Professor, you have the floor here, what do you want to do?” There are many things that need to be done and moved along, but what you’re talking about today is an important piece. Case management would certainly be another important piece.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all of you for being here.
My question for each of you is about the interplay in family courts, particularly in this province. We know that, increasingly, clients are unrepresented. There is an interplay among the issues of dealing with the shortage of judges, the shortage of counsel and the inadequacy of legal aid services to support those. How do you see that interplay impacting these provisions?
Mr. Bala: Thank you for that question.
I was both flattered and very much challenged by the previous question, “If there is one thing you could do.” I said that case management is part of it, but legal aid is a huge part of it, and the inadequacy of legal aid, especially, family legal aid. There are all kinds of issues in the criminal justice system. Criminal legal aid gets a bit of a priority because of, again, the Jordan decision and other reasons. Of course, accused persons need to have legal aid. But in family law, you can represent yourself, after all.
That’s an enormous problem that we see, Senator Pate, and it varies by province and court level. At least half of the people who are trying to resolve their family disputes don’t have access to legal aid and can’t afford a lawyer. That’s a very large group of people who have very serious problems. It’s not just the adults; their children are very much affected. We need to have more support services.
Shifting to UFCs helps address that a little bit because the system can be a little more efficient. The issue of lack of funding for legal aid, and to some extent, one can say coast to coast to coast, but in Ontario — certainly in my province — it has become much worse under the present government. They made an enormous cut to legal aid, and that has an enormous impact on parents, especially vulnerable parents, women and their children. We won’t have an effective justice system without having proper access to justice.
Governments, even academics like myself, are trying to prepare materials for people who are self-represented. I’ve been involved with the Parenting Plan Guide in Ontario, which a number of provinces have adopted. It’s a helpful tool, but it requires a degree of sophistication and education to be able to use a tool like that. Far too many people, of course, have issues of literacy and language skill and so on, making those tools not useful. They need human help to resolve their issues. Often, if they have the appropriate help, they can resolve their cases without a trial.
One of the values of having a UFC is that you have judges who are experienced in dealing with people who don’t have lawyers and who need a patient, knowledgeable hand to try to direct the parties to settle or move their case forward. If we had our wish list, legal aid would be very high on it. Again, you’re going to be hearing from people from the Canadian Bar Association and The Advocates’ Society, who can speak to that as well. It’s an enormous issue, and the federal government has a role.
Ms. Bramwell: I can’t speak to the family law context, but I can say that facilitating access to justice for self-represented litigants is one of our biggest challenges.
We have had some success within the tribunal community, not with the sort of advocacy that can be provided by legal aid, but with the sort of guidance that can be provided by somebody in the role of navigator and simply provides procedural guidance to people facing the legal system. It is a critical access-to-justice issue.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: We have two minutes left. The subsequent answers will have to be in writing.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: How much time is left, Mr. Chair?
[English]
The Chair: You have about a minute and a half to ask the question.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Do other senators want to ask questions, or just me?
[English]
The Chair: No, your question is the last question.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: The committee likes to hear from witnesses, but we also like to see studies, empirical analyses and statistics. I tried to obtain some of these things yesterday, but unfortunately it wasn’t possible. We’re concerned. I would like to hear your views on Unified Family Courts. As you said, many cases involve women, children, victims of domestic violence, child support and legal custody.
My question is for you, Mr. Covelli. Are you aware of any gender-based analyses carried out to verify whether shifting positions to the Unified Family Courts is really helping to resolve the situation? Couldn’t this actually exacerbate inequalities in access to justice for women, racialized people and low-income families? I’m curious to know whether any analyses have been carried out before deciding where to shift the positions.
[English]
Mr. Covelli: I’m here to talk about Division 31 and the amendments to the ATSSC Act. The changes to the Judges Act are not within my area of expertise, so I would defer to Professor Bala; I don’t know if he has that information. Otherwise, perhaps, my colleagues at the Department of Justice could help you.
The Chair: Professor Bala, this is a very important question, but we are out of time. I will ask you to please provide an answer in written form. We want to hear your answer on that question, sir. Are you able to do that?
Mr. Bala: I can give you a 30-second answer right now, if I may.
There is an enormous lack of data, and this is indicated in the statistics. We don’t even know how many people in Canada are obtaining a divorce.
I completely agree that there is a need for better statistics, better research and better data. There is funding for research, including sources like the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC, but the federal and provincial governments should be funding more research.
We don’t know a lot of things, so that’s a great issue to raise. I am looking forward to hearing from others about obtaining more funding for this.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Once again, to all the witnesses who have come this morning, on behalf of my colleagues on this Senate committee, I express our appreciation for you taking your time to join us and giving us such good information. Thank you very much for your participation.
For our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Paolo De Buono, Lawyer, Family law from the Family Law Association; and Ms. Hilary Book, President, The Advocates’ Society, by video conference. We also welcome from the Canadian Bar Association, Katherine Batycky, Member, Family Law Section, by video conference; and Shelley Hounsell, Member, Family Law Section, by video conference.
Witnesses, you will have five minutes to give opening remarks. The Family Law Association, The Advocates’ Society and the Canadian Bar Association will each have five minutes. We will start with Mr. De Buono, then Ms. Book and the Canadian Bar Association, or CBA.
Mr. De Buono, please proceed.
Paolo De Buono, Lawyer, Family law, Family Law Association: Good morning. I am a board member of the Family Law Association, which is a group that represents family lawyers across Ontario. It is more heavily represented in the central-south area, where I practise family law, but it does have members across Ontario. It is very active, as well, in providing professional development and professional education to family lawyers across Ontario.
In addition to being a board member of the Family Law Association, I am a family lawyer. Most of my practice is in family law, and I can provide, uniquely, to this discussion my experience at the street level of practising law, filing cases, representing clients quickly and dealing with urgency at times. Perhaps I can be helpful in that way.
I have provided something in writing, as well; hopefully, you have it. Therein, I provide some reasons why increased funding — and I can only really speak to Ontario from my experience — for improving services at the UFCs level. Also, moving toward more Unified Family Courts in Ontario than having separate family courts is in the public interest.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, for those opening remarks. We will now hear from Hilary Book. Please proceed.
[Translation]
Hilary Book, President, The Advocates’ Society: Good morning. The Advocates’ Society is the largest advocacy association in Canada. We represent over 6,000 lawyers across the country who specialize in courtroom advocacy.
Thank you for inviting The Advocates’ Society to speak to the committee about budgetary measures to improve the justice system.
[English]
I am going to limit my comments to the proposed changes to the Judges Act. The Advocates’ Society strongly supports these changes and echoes Professor Bala and Mr. De Buono in that regard, but we also call for the appointment of more judges to help address the crisis of delays in our justice system. Courts across Canada, including in Ontario, are in dire need of more judges.
My main message for the committee today is that the number of judges on Canada’s superior courts and courts of appeal must be adjusted on an ongoing basis to keep pace with increases in population, as well as the size and complexity of each court’s caseload.
The society’s understanding is that there are approximately 10% fewer judges relative to Canada’s population today than there were 20 years ago.
Our members have seen that decline having real-life consequences. Courts across Canada are feeling the significant strain of not having enough judges. In particular, the proportionate decline in the number of judges causes delays that threaten meaningful access to justice and risk undermining Canadians’ confidence in our justice system.
To quote the Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court from his remarks at the Opening of the Courts in September:
Simply put: there are not enough judges to meet the demands of the number of cases in the system.
The stakes are high. Without timely justice, the health and well-being of families and children are in jeopardy. Without timely justice, criminal cases are at risk of being stayed – never having been heard on their merits. And without timely civil justice, Ontario’s economic stability is threatened.
The society echoes the Chief Justice’s comments.
[Translation]
I’m not suggesting that simply appointing more judges will fully resolve the matter. The delays are a complex issue and they will require an equally complex solution. However, no matter how much progress we make in terms of provincial investments in judicial infrastructure or procedural efficiency, ultimately, a judge rules on a case. Yet there simply aren’t enough judges right now.
On that note, The Advocates’ Society would like to express its sincere appreciation for the reassignment of judges to Ontario courts. However, we must acknowledge that other lower courts across the country are facing similar shortages of judges. These shortages aren’t addressed in the budget. Canada’s judicial complement should be subject to a regular evidence-based review to ensure that Canadians can access the courts and see their disputes resolved in a timely manner.
[English]
The courts are a fundamental pillar of our democracy, and we cannot continue to neglect their funding and resourcing.
I would like to conclude with a few words about Unified Family Courts, or UFCs. As I mentioned at the outset, the society is a strong proponent of UFCs. Divided jurisdiction creates confusion among experienced practitioners, let alone the self-represented litigants who comprise a substantial percentage of parties before the court. UFCs are a one-stop shop for families to resolve their legal issues, importantly, with judges who specialize in family law.
We understand that the judges being proposed in this act or in this amendment will be allocated to Brampton where there is dire need, but there are large cities in Ontario that do not have UFCs, including Toronto. The Advocates’ Society strongly supports Bill C-15’s allocation of more judges to the UFC.
We also believe that more has to be done for families across the country. The society encourages the federal government to continue working with its provincial counterparts and the courts to expand UFCs throughout Canada to help Canadian families access the justice they need when they need it.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to the committee about these important issues. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now move to the Canadian Bar Association.
Shelley Hounsell, Member, Family Law Section, Canadian Bar Association: My name is Shelley Hounsell. I’m here on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, or CBA. I’m speaking this morning with Kathy Batycky, and we are both family lawyers. We are also speaking on behalf of the Judicial Issues Subcommittee of the CBA.
The CBA is a national association of over 40,000 legal professionals, with a mandate of improving access to justice and advocating for law reform.
I want to speak to the importance of the reallocation of judicial positions in Bill C-15, Division 30 of Part 5, in particular, the eight appointments to UFCs.
Family law is complex. Across Canada, family law issues are divided between multiple court systems. Divorce and property matters must go to superior courts. Parenting disputes and child protection matters go to provincial courts. Families in crisis — more than half of whom are self-represented — often navigate multiple courts to resolve issues concerning their children, their safety and their financial security. This system creates confusion, delays and costs. It makes it harder for vulnerable families to obtain timely solutions.
This is especially critical in cases of family violence. The 2021 changes to the Divorce Act were intended to ensure that courts prioritize safety, but these cases require judges with a deep expertise in assessing risk, understanding trauma and managing evidentiary complexities. Not every court is equipped to do that well.
Unified Family Courts, or UFCs, change this. They bring all family matters into one court with judges who are experts in family law and appreciate the complexity of family breakdowns. UFCs integrate services and offer alternatives to trial, such as judge-led settlement conferences. They can respond quickly, issue coordinated orders and deliver outcomes that are safer, more predictable and responsive to families.
Katherine Batycky, Member, Family Law Section, Canadian Bar Association: Good morning and thank you, chair, for this opportunity.
My name is Katherine Batycky, and as Ms. Hounsell mentioned, I am also speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association’s Family Law Section and Judicial Issues Subcommittee.
As a family law lawyer from Ontario, I want to speak directly to the need in my province and why these reallocations matter. Ontario manages some of the largest and most complex caseloads in the country. In 2022-23, the courts handled over 250,000 active family cases and nearly 770,000 active civil cases, with criminal cases rising. These pressures place extraordinary strain on court resources.
Family law in Ontario is among the most fragmented in Canada. A single family may find a parenting or child protection dispute in a provincial court and a separate parenting issue along with property division in a superior court. This could mean multiple hearings, retelling the same story and navigating different procedures before different judges. It runs the risk of different judges making different factual findings for the same family. It increases costs, causes delays and prolongs conflict. These challenges are magnified for Ontario’s diverse communities. Many families face significant language and cultural barriers, making it especially daunting to navigate multiple courts, especially if they lack the resources to manage repeated appearances.
Importantly, the impact of UFCs extends beyond family law. When family matters move to UFCs and out of the general court system, superior and provincial courts have greater capacity to manage the growing civil and criminal caseloads.
The CBA commends the government for reallocating judicial positions in Bill C-15, which is an important first step in addressing delays and rebuilding public confidence in our justice system. We also encourage sustained investment and modern frameworks that reflect the constitutional importance of the courts and the needs of Canadians.
Thank you. We would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now move to questions from the senators.
Senator Batters: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank all of you. As someone who practised family law prior to being in the Senate, I know what an absolutely challenging area of law it is. While it might be some of the most difficult law to practise, it can also be the most rewarding because your clients greatly appreciate the very difficult matters that you are helping them with. Thank you all for that.
I want to first ask the Canadian Bar Association a question. This reallocation takes a number of judicial spots away from the general division or the other part of the civil litigation division of the Ontario Superior Court. Those could be matters dealing with estate litigation, which is also highly complex and can be extremely litigious, or other types of civil litigation, such as people suing a business or another person for an outstanding debt or something like that. Those are important matters that can result in significant court delays due to lack of judges. How would you respond to that? Is that a problem in Ontario, which is mainly the place that this affects? Could that be an additional problem that we’re facing here?
Ms. Hounsell: I will answer your question. Thank you.
What I would look at, first of all, is what happens at the provincial court level when a Unified Family Court is created. It removes the cases that would normally be heard by the designated family court judge at the provincial level to a different courthouse. Immediately, you have improved capacity to address criminal cases at the provincial court level.
The funnel from the provincial level to the superior court level is thereby reduced because the capacity to help resolve cases and hear trials at the provincial level is improved since they are dual-appointed judges.
At the civil level, I would ask you to consider what Professor Bala and the other witnesses have spoken about this morning. The magic of the Unified Family Court is the ability to case manage. Instead of every court case that appears before a justice being rooted to trial, we are rooted to many different off-ramps. Those off-ramps resolve many more cases much more efficiently, both time-wise and in result, than the regular system would. By removing judges from the regular stream — we would call it the Trial Division in Halifax, where I am speaking from — we would then reallocate the capacity for that Trial Division to handle the number of cases it has, so the civil cases would not be delayed. That has not been the experience, as the CBA has known it to be or reported it to be. Instead, the civil caseload has a better capacity, and the family cases that are redirected to the Unified Family Court are also dealt with more efficiently.
It is a win-win situation at the Superior Court level as well as the Provincial Court level.
Senator Batters: I appreciate that insight. I agree that, yes, if you have a very good, experienced family law judge for a pretrial conference, that will much more likely result in a settlement rather than proceeding on to a trial. Thank you.
Mr. De Buono, given your experience on the ground, I would like to ask you, because you have so much experience on this, if you could recommend one priority measure to the government — not just federal government but provincial governments in Canada; you practise in Ontario, so you would have a focus on that — to improve the functioning of Family Courts right now, what would that be?
Mr. De Buono: I just want to add as well that one of the most challenging experiences I have had was having a sensitive family law case in a motion dealt with by a Superior Court judge who had no experience in family law, and that’s significant.
I believe a measure would be increased training for judges and other staff who are not in family law to deal with family law issues. An example is intimate partner violence. We need to be more aware of that and how to respond in a timely way, in a sensitive way, in a just way, in those types of cases.
Senator Batters: I appreciate that.
Lastly, to Ms. Book, when we were also hearing that there are two additional spots that will be allocated to the Ontario Court of Appeal — obviously, that would make the Ontario Court of Appeal by far the largest Court of Appeal in Canada — is that something that The Advocates’ Society is recognizing also needs to be done, or are you thinking that those spots could potentially have been better used to have courts at the Superior Court level?
Ms. Book: Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal perform very important functions in the justice system. Chief Justice Tulloch of the Court of Appeal recently commented on how the Ontario Court of Appeal had fewer judges per capita than most other Courts of Appeal in the country.
It is tough to say whether judges would be better in one spot or another. We need more judges in general, and certainly the Court of Appeal has a very heavy caseload. We are in support of efforts to ensure that all courts are properly resourced.
Senator Batters: Also, all those judicial vacancies are filled. There are still, as of December 1, 12 vacancies in Ontario out of 39 federally.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Ms. Book, but others may want to answer it as well.
You were quite critical of the shortage of judges. You said that there were 10% fewer judges than 20 years ago. This poses a problem.
My colleague, Senator Oudar, asked officials yesterday whether other provinces had requested more judges. We see that, in Ontario, this is done at no cost. Are you aware of any other provinces in urgent need of federal judges? We’re told that a form must be filled out to try to bring in new judges. Do you actually know of any other provinces facing a situation as critical or even more critical than Ontario’s situation, but that weren’t chosen?
Ms. Book: Thank you for your question, senator. Every part of the country is facing this problem.
[English]
As Professor Bala said, we don’t have a lot of data, so it is unclear to us exactly how critical the issue is in Ontario versus Quebec versus Alberta versus P.E.I. We just don’t have good information on that.
The figure that I quoted was 10% fewer judges per population. So it is not that there has been an absolute decline but per capita.
The Advocates’ Society did a report on delay in the civil justice system a couple of years ago in which we had statistics that we could find, and based on anecdotal evidence from our members in Quebec, in British Columbia, in Alberta, in Ontario, the problem exists across the country. It is not just limited to Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Does any other witness on the panel have a comparison of the different provinces and the level of urgency to address the shortage of judges?
[English]
Ms. Batycky: On behalf of the CBA, I would like to indicate that, as indicated earlier, the statistics just don’t exist. It is very hard to find out. Every province has their own Attorney General and their own provincial government, which, as has been indicated by Professor Bala, has to co-operate with the federal government before a Unified Family Court, for example, could even be considered.
I want to point out that, as Ms. Book indicated, these eight reallocations to Unified Family Court are specifically geared toward the courthouse in Brampton, Ontario. The court in Brampton, Ontario, I can tell you that right now, the judges who sit there are all generalist judges. There are different judges with different areas of expertise, and they all have to sit and listen to family matters.
The difficulty is that because of the Jordan case, very often, the criminal cases supplant the family cases and the civil cases such that they can take many years for a family case to go from the very beginning all the way to trial. In fact, right now, I understand that if I were ready to try to obtain a settlement conference, which is a meeting with a judge to try to settle the case, we’re looking at October 2026.
We find that the reallocation of the eight judges specifically for Brampton will most definitely increase the access of justice not only for civil and criminal cases but as well as family cases, because these will be eight new judges who will be sitting at Family Court, which means that all the other judges already in Brampton will pay attention to the criminal and civil cases.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you think there should be more transparency in the system? Should the population know how many judges are in each province and what the real problems are? Should it be transparent? It’s not transparent, actually.
Ms. Batycky: As Professor Bala indicated, we definitely need more data. The transparency, data and information are definitely needed.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Mr. De Buono: I cannot speak about provinces other than Ontario, but I can compare regions that have a Unified Court and those that do not. For example, in York Region, in Simcoe County, where there is a Unified Court, when I need to schedule a next court date — and these are federally appointed judges — there are at least six months of delay.
In Toronto, at the Ontario Court of Justice, where there is not a Unified Court, because that court is very specialized with judges who understand family law and there must be resources to do so, I can get the next court date within two months, and judges will make themselves available sooner if there is an urgent issue. That makes a difference.
Senator Simons: Mr. De Buono, I want to pick up where you left off because that was a surprising answer. We have been told by most people that the Unified Family Court is the answer to delays and problems, and I have been wondering why Toronto was left out if York County and Brampton get this but poor Toronto doesn’t. What you are describing is that it is actually faster in Toronto working with specialized judges.
Can you help me to understand? Do we need the Unified Court in smaller jurisdictions because we don’t have the body of specialized judges? Why is it so different in Toronto?
Mr. De Buono: That’s an interesting question. In my experience, when the Ontario government is initiating new measures in law, they often start with Toronto. For example, they start a new online filing system only in Toronto, which is then intended to be spread.
I may suggest it would be the other way around in unifying courts. The Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto is as effective because it is larger and has experience. I know the judges work very hard in doing what they do. In other words, if you’re going to start with unifying courts, I would go the other way around, and then perhaps Toronto could be last because it has worked so well.
There are small areas, and likely areas where French-language services are important, where having two court systems in a smaller municipality in terms of population — often large in size — can have a detrimental effect.
Senator Simons: Are you saying that this is the case in francophone parts of Ontario? Do we have these unified courts in some of the places like Sudbury, North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie?
Mr. De Buono: I can’t answer specifically, but I suspect they do exist as both unified and not unified. But it would be beneficial to have a unified system there.
Senator Simons: I don’t know Brampton well, but I do know it has a very large South Asian population. I imagine that international cases that may be under The Hague Convention would crop up more likely in a community — well I mean in Toronto too — like Brampton. So I’m wondering, Ms. Hounsell or Ms. Batycky, if you could talk about why Brampton might be a particular place where a UFC would be an asset.
Ms. Hounsell: Thank you, chairperson and senator. I would like to emphasize that the UFC system is what we are speaking about today. That’s one-stop shopping for all family law cases.
What happens when provinces attempt to provide more services is that they allocate it to the provincial family court because that’s where people who are not divorcing end up first. What happens is that we load up services at the provincial family court. We help people with their parenting issues, child support, spousal support and child protection. We do not help them — because there is no jurisdiction to do so — with property division and divorce.
I wish to emphasize, not accessing an ability to divide property at the same courthouse where you are dealing with the primary issues of children and support means that many people do not then file a new application at the Superior Court to divide property; they walk away from it. In particular, people who are not married, where the law is not clear on what their rights are to divide property. So there is an access-to-justice issue.
There is also a gendered issue, which was raised by the previous senator. By not having a unified court, we create a system that naturally creates barriers — to women in particular who are survivors of family violence — from accessing justice regarding property division.
I would suggest that all courts need to be unified so that people who access the court are able to ask the judge who they appear in front of to address all of their issues at once.
Senator Simons: I understand that. I guess my question was more particular to Brampton. Maybe, Ms. Batycky, if you want to take a run at it. Is there a particular advantage in a community that is so multicultural, so international, where there may be international child custody cases under The Hague Convention or there may be language and cultural barriers? What is the particular advantage to a UFC in a jurisdiction such as Brampton?
Ms. Batycky: One of the most important particular advantages is the specialty judges. With these eight reallocations, there will be eight new judicial appointments to Ontario, which will come from lawyers who particularly practise family law, who will understand The Hague Convention, who will understand all the different family laws that affect families. Because of that, the population of Brampton will have access to specialty judges that can move the cases faster through the system. As I indicated earlier, we are talking almost a year before you can get in front of a judge to try to discuss a settlement conference. If these eight new judges were appointed and the UFC were created, it would create a more efficient system so that the families can get their cases settled quickly. In addition, it would allow all the other judges to move through the criminal cases and the civil cases much more efficiently.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you everyone for being here. For all intents and purposes, the evidence that we’ve heard is that this is the best practice of the UFCs. Ms. Batycky and Ms. Hounsell, could one of you could take this on?
I note from your brief that the UFCs can reduce reliance on peace bond applications in criminal court. As we know, police officers play a significant role in enforcing these orders. I also heard from you that there is not a lot of data or metrics. Given your members and the representation that you have, do you have any idea or metrics on how UFC expansions might reduce police involvement in peace bond enforcement?
Ms. Hounsell: Thank you, senator. I can’t speak to the involvement of police, but I can talk about how family violence is more appropriately addressed at a UFC if that would be helpful.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
Ms. Hounsell: The issues when people separate are immediate with housing: Where are we going to live? Are we going to live together or separate? How are the children going to be cared for? Who will care for them and when, after school, daycare and on the weekends? How will we exchange the care of the children? Who will be present? How can we mitigate risk? How can we provide support so that the bills are paid and there is an ability to put food on the table?
By having a unified court judge who is aware of these issues and is able to respond to them immediately, we create safety and reduce risk immediately. The timing of waiting for a court appearance, as Ms. Batycky just described, for months on end with no resolution, means the only recourse is for a woman, if she is a victim of family violence, to appear at the provincial court level and seek peace bonds.
Peace bonds are trying to manage what I just described that require a Superior Court order. I can only speak anecdotally, but it makes sense to me that I am able to bring forward a case to a judge who is able to create safety at first instance, rather than send them to a provincial court level, have police trying to manage family law issues on the streets and in person, which also overburdens our child welfare system. This is why we support the UFC as a first measure for safety and protecting vulnerable children.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Ms. Hounsell.
Ms. Batycky, did you have anything to add to that?
Ms. Batycky: The one thing that I can add is that in the jurisdictions in Ontario that still do not have UFCs, there will be the two separate courts: the provincial court family division and the general Superior Court. The dilemma we have right now in those areas, which includes Brampton, is that because of cuts to Legal Aid by our provincial government, duty counsel is no longer allowed — when there is a separate course — to assist families in Superior Court, just in provincial court.
When the UFC is created, the duty counsel would then be allowed to assist with the families because the child protection and other provincial issues move into the UFC. That is a huge gap in the areas that don’t have UFCs, particularly in an area like Brampton, where there are so many people and cultures coming in, many of whom just can’t afford a lawyer at this time.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Ms. Batycky. That was an important point. I don’t think we have heard that before in making that distinction. Thank you for emphasizing that.
One last question: Have you and the Canadian Bar Association advocated for UFCs in B.C.?
Ms. Hounsell: I can answer that, as well as Ms. Batycky. Yes, we have written letters to the federal Department of Justice, and we have published letters and reports in our national magazine. It is an ongoing advocacy piece, especially for the family law subsection. Yes, and if anybody would like to lend their support, we would appreciate it.
Ms. Batycky: The one thing I would like to add to that comes back to Brampton. It is true that the Canadian Bar Association advocates for the UFCs across Canada. In Brampton, the importance of the UFC is that it will assist families in being able to access the courts much more quickly.
I can just tell you that anecdotally, about six months ago, we had what is called a “family law blitz list.” There were a bunch of old family law files getting ready for trial, and at the last minute, the entire “family law blitz list” fell apart because of the Jordan case. All the judges that were in the general division had to go deal with the criminal cases, and all the family law cases had to wait for another period of time when we could try to find judges. That would be corrected if the UFC were created in Brampton.
The other thing is that, because it’s co-operative with the provincial government, you have to understand that the provincial government has to be fully supported. The wonderful thing about Ontario is that our current provincial government is very supportive.
It also requires a place to locate these eight new judges and this extra court, and the Brampton area is ready for that. They have added a new wing to the court built such that it’s just ready to be able to implement these extra eight judges to come in and help with the family law system and all the systems in Brampton.
Senator Dhillon: Ms. Hounsell and Ms. Batycky, thank you for that. May I just ask in quick form if you could share with us how far along your advocacy is with B.C.? Is there good reception there? Is this going to happen?
Ms. Hounsell: I don’t think we’re able to say that because, as Professor Bala indicated, there are three or four key players to see a UFC. Part of B.C.’s problem is its size. That’s another factor I would add — just the sheer size of the province and the ability to deliver services.
It comes down to provincial and federal money to support these courthouses and situations that are necessary to support the UFC.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Tannas: Again I’m hoping to learn. In a UFC situation, essentially, the province delegates their jurisdiction to a federally appointed judge so that everything can be decided upon by a federally appointed judge. Is that right?
Ms. Hounsell: I would look at it a little differently. The Superior Court judge has jurisdiction over all the laws, and so that Superior Court judge then applies the laws in all of its areas. The problem is that the provincial court judge does not have the ability to address matters of property because that’s related to section 96 of our Constitution Act — delegation and divorce. We can’t do the reverse. That’s why we have to go to the superior level.
The unified judge, who is at the Superior Court level, has jurisdiction over child protection. The provincial family law legislation covers property and divorce. This is why it works.
Senator Tannas: How much of the inertia around this is over who gets to appoint the judge versus the money? Is there anything in the whole issue of who is appointing the judge that is at issue here in places where this isn’t being enthusiastically embraced?
Ms. Hounsell: That’s a piece of it, but about 75% is also providing the building, staff, infrastructure and other programs that are generally expected to support the UFC. It’s not only about who pays the judge’s salary. That’s just one small piece of what a UFC is.
When we speak about who is going to pay for the judge’s salary, that’s the federal government, because these are federally appointed judges. But the rest of the piece is the provincial obligation. That’s a big piece.
The Chair: Are there any other questions from senators? I see none. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for coming this morning, taking the time to be with us and answering our questions. Your testimony is very valuable to the committee’s work. We’re grateful for your appearance here today.
Senators, our next meeting is Wednesday, December 10. We’ll focus on drafting instructions for the pre-study on the elements of Bill C-15 referred to our committee. In order to meet the Senate’s reporting deadline of February 13, 2026, members are encouraged to prepare and forward their instructions to the clerk beforehand if possible.
(The committee adjourned.)