Child Support Implementation and Enforcement Fund (April 1996 to March 2000)

Child-centred Family Justice Fund (April 2000 to March 2001)

• Principles
• Family Justice Initiatives
• Incentive for Special Projects

Funding Allocations

Family Justice Initiatives Projects

• Coordination
• Federal-Provincial-Territorial Consultations on Family Law
• Family Justice Enhancements and Innovations
• Alternative Mechanisms to Determine, Vary or Recalculate Child Support
• Enforcement Activities
• Reciprocal Enforcement
• Policy Development, Research and Evaluation
• Public Awareness and Professional Training

Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland and Labrador
Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia
Nunavut
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Yukon

• Coordination:  coordinating activities to implement the federal child support guidelines;
• Enhancing Existing Services:  developing or improving existing client and court services to meet workload increases;
• Provincial and Territorial Guidelines:  adopting provincial guidelines that parallel the Federal Child Support Guidelines;
• Public Information:  supporting public awareness and understanding of the Federal Child Support Guidelines;
• Innovative Approaches:  developing, testing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating innovative ways to meet the demand for variations to existing support agreements and orders, and for new agreements and orders; and
• Monitoring:  monitoring the effects of the legislative changes.

• Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEA) Enhancements:  developing and enhancing provincial and territorial computer systems and applications to access services under FOAEA;
• Monitoring:  monitoring the effects of systems and administrative changes and enhancements to enforcement mechanisms;
• Maintenance Enforcement Survey:  supporting changes to provincial and territorial information systems design to meet the data-collection requirements of the National Maintenance Enforcement Survey managed by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics;
• Innovative Approaches:  testing innovative approaches to improve support enforcement mechanisms;
• Public Information:  delivering public legal education and information to increase awareness of changes in maintenance enforcement programs; and
• Responses to Workload Increases:  implementing administrative changes, system upgrades, staff additions and enhancements to services to meet anticipated demands for variations and new child support orders.

• Family Justice Initiatives:  Activities funded in this component build on recent successful collaborative efforts to enable provinces and territories to develop, pilot, implement and evaluate family justice programs and services that deal with private family law matters in cases of separation and divorce, including child support, support enforcement as well as reciprocal enforcement and custody and access activities that promote the best interests of children.
• Incentive for Special Projects:   This component is designed to promote the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the provinces and territories and, in particular, processes to determine, vary or recalculate child support amounts.
• Public Legal Education and Information and Professional Training:  This component supports work to enhance knowledge, promote the development of materials and inform Canadians, including the legal community, about child support guidelines, support enforcement measures and programs, custody and access services, and related family law matters.  Under this component, the Department of Justice Canada provides funding assistance to community organizations, professional associations and other non-governmental groups involved in promoting public awareness and education or professional development and training for family law professionals.  As this report focuses on the programs, services and projects delivered by government departments and agencies, projects funded under this component are not listed.

• The needs and well being of children are paramount.
• No one framework of post-separation parenting will be ideal for all children.
• Programs and services must be sensitive to the fact that children and youth experience separation and divorce at different stages of development.  The programs must aim to protect them from violence, conflict, abuse and economic hardship.
• An integrated approach to planning and delivering child support, support enforcement, and custody and access programs and services is encouraged to respond to the long-term service needs of children and families.
• We should encourage mechanisms for resolving non-adversarial disputes early.
• Activities should address the need for evaluation, project monitoring and performance measures.
• Research should advance the family law community’s knowledge of specific issues, inform policy and program discussions, help develop or refine policies or programs and enhance legislative clarity.
• Participants in the family justice system (families, judiciary, bar, court staff, enforcement staff, mediators, and others) should be well informed about family justice reforms.
• We should promote coordinated national, inter-jurisdictional, and international approaches to innovative family justice services and information sharing.
• We need alternatives or modifications to the current court dispute resolution system to reduce cost and delays for parents.
• Programs and services should be efficient and cost effective for the justice system.

Family Justice Initiatives Projects

The following provides an overview of the programs, services and projects that have been funded under both the Child Support Implementation and Enforcement Fund and the Child-centred Family Justice Fund. The appendices profile the projects funded in each province and territory. The body of the report and the appendices have been organized under the eight primary areas of activity identified above.

Coordination

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have long recognized the importance of cooperation and collaboration in the development and implementation of family law reforms.  It was in that spirit that deputy ministers of justice and deputy attorneys general established the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on Child Support Initiatives (FPT Task Force) in 1996 to facilitate national planning and coordination of policy, public awareness, research and evaluation activities and to provide a forum for sharing information.  In the same spirit, the federal government has made funding available to support planning and coordination in each province and territory, as well as provincial and territorial participation in national planning and consultations.

The provinces and territories adopted a variety of committee and project management structures to meet their planning needs.  British Columbia, for example, established a planning process that involved six Ministry of Attorney General branches, other departments and agencies, and the Legal Services Society of British Columbia.  Manitoba’s Department of Justice had two committees to oversee preparations for and implementation of the family law reforms.  An internal interdepartmental committee brought together representatives of the provincial departments and agencies dealing with family law and child support issues.  The second committee, comprised of representatives of the Bench, the Canadian Bar Association, various subsections of the Manitoba Bar Association, community organizations and provincial departments, continues to serve as a consultative forum for exploration of policy and procedural matters affecting the administration of family law in the province.  Justice Saskatchewan’s Policy Planning and Evaluation Branch and an interdepartmental committee, chaired by the branch director, oversee implementation and evaluation of child support activities and reforms.

Nine provinces and territories used Fund resources to hire project coordinators or managers.  Typically, these individuals are responsible for consultation and planning activities, including participation in the FPT Task Force and its subcommittees, and often for the administration of and accountability for federal funding.  In some cases, the project coordinators are also expected to be involved in direct program development and management activities.  For example, New Brunswick’s project coordinator managed training, public information and research activities, while in Newfoundland, the coordinator’s duties included implementing court rule reforms.

With the most significant portion of the guidelines implementation work completed, the provinces and territories began in 1999-2000 to plan for the transition to operational status and/or new development goals.  In New Brunswick, with most of the child support guidelines implementation activities completed, the Department of Justice assigned the project manager additional responsibilities for the expansion of the province’s Domestic Legal Aid project.  In Ontario, the group involved in guidelines implementation was assigned new responsibilities for planning and developing family law projects and services and for managing Family Mediation Services, Family Law Information Centres and public legal information activities.

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Consultations on Family Law

The 1997 amendments to the Divorce Act included a requirement for a comprehensive review of the child support reforms and a report to Parliament on the review before May 1, 2002.  From the outset, the Department of Justice Canada planned to conduct a national consultation as part of the review process.  Later, in its May 1999 response to the Special Joint Committee report, For the Sake of the Children, the Government undertook to bring forward proposals addressing the Committee recommendations by May 2002, integrating the work with the review of and report to Parliament on child support.  This undertaking, too, called for national consultations on a range of family law issues, especially issues touching on child custody and access policies and procedures.

While the first responsibility for the conduct of these consultations fell to the federal government, provincial and territorial governments were directly implicated and had an equal interest in ensuring that parents, family law professionals and others across the country had adequate opportunities to register their views on child-centred family law matters.  Accordingly, the FPT Task Force and the governing federal-provincial-territorial Family Law Committee were involved in planning for the national consultation.  In addition, a portion of the Child-centred Family Justice Fund resources available to each province and territory was dedicated to supporting provincial and territorial consultations.

In 2000-2001, the provincial and territorial departments responsible for family law policy and services used the federal resources to develop consultation plans appropriate to their demographic and geographical circumstances.  Most assigned responsibility for the development of these plans to the project teams or committees responsible for coordination of the implementation of the child support guidelines.  Many provinces and territories retained consultants or assigned staff to provide strategic and logistical support to these planning bodies.

In all, consultation sessions were held in more than 35 communities in every province and territory and across the country.  The final report on these consultations, entitled Report on Federal-Provincial-Territorial Consultations on Custody, Access and Child Support in Canada, is available on the Department of Justice Canada Internet site at http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca under “Child Support.”

Family Justice Enhancements and Innovations

Over the past four to five years, provincial and territorial governments, with the financial support of the federal government, have tested and implemented new services and modified existing programs with the goal of offering divorced and separated parents opportunities to cooperatively and positively redefine their parenting relationships, responsibilities and arrangements.  These new services were also designed to reduce the stress, delays and costs associated with the necessary legal processes involved in arriving at child support, custody and access agreements and orders.  These efforts have ranged from technical and administrative measures designed to improve the predictability and timeliness of court proceedings to mediation services and parent education programs.

Parent education programs have been established in most provinces and territories since the earliest pilot programs in the mid-1990s.  Evaluations of the programs have found that participating parents are generally satisfied with their experience and tend to support the idea that the sessions should be mandatory.  The research has also found some early, but tenuous, evidence of benefits in terms of improved parenting.[1]  The programs provide separated and divorcing parents opportunities to learn about the following:

• the impact of separation on children and adults;
• how parents can best help their children through this difficult time;
• the legal process and the range of dispute resolution options available in the justice system, including mediation and the court process; and
• how the child support guidelines work and how to find out more about them.

Typically, trained facilitators lead the sessions using a provincially developed curriculum, facilitator’s guide, videos and handouts.  In most provinces and territories offering this service, the program is readily available in larger communities, but it is often difficult to make it available in smaller communities.  The programs vary in a number of respects, as the following brief profiles of programs supported by federal funding illustrate.

British Columbia.  The Family Justice Services Division, Ministry of Attorney General, delivers both voluntary and mandatory sessions under its Parenting After Separation program.  The three-hour sessions are co-facilitated by a man and a woman through agencies under contract.  The sessions are also offered in Cantonese, Mandarin, Punjabi and Hindi, as well as English, in the Greater Vancouver area.  The voluntary sessions are available in many locations throughout the province, but are being reduced as the mandatory program expands.

Mandatory participation was introduced in 1998-1999 as a pilot project in the Burnaby and New Westminster provincial courts and is now delivered in eight locales, with more added as planning and resources permit.  Under the mandatory program, parents must attend one session before their first court appearance can be scheduled.[2]

Alberta.  The Court Services Division of Alberta Justice has a parenting education program, which is delivered through local agencies in nine communities throughout the province, with plans to expand to four additional centres.  The program features a six-hour seminar presented in two three-hour segments designed to give parents a better understanding of the effect of family break-up on their children and of ways to minimize negative impacts.  The sessions also provide information about alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, child support and child support guidelines.  In areas where a live seminar is not available, parents may view a two-hour video that highlights the concepts covered in the full seminar. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has made attendance at a Parenting After Separation seminar mandatory, with limited exemptions.[3]

Saskatchewan.  The province reports that its parent education program recognizes that cooperative problem solving and decision making are integral to the well-being of the children affected.  Normally, parents attend three two-hour sessions on separate evenings, but in some centres they are delivered in a single six-hour session.  The sessions are co-facilitated by a social worker from Family Law Support Services and a mediator with the provincial Mediation Services.  As attendance is voluntary, the province promotes the program by distributing posters and other materials through Department of Social Services offices, churches, libraries, the courts, law offices and other locations.  While the program has not been evaluated, it benefits from participant feedback obtained from questionnaires distributed at the conclusion of the sessions.  Generally, participants have been positive about the program, especially the modules dealing with children’s reactions to family break-up, separation and divorce.

Manitoba.  Staff of the Family Conciliation Branch, Department of Family Services, deliver the province’s parent education program, For the Sake of the Children, which consists of two three-hour sessions.  The introductory session, designed for all participants, covers general information about the needs of children of different ages, parenting plans, economic and legal issues, and alternatives to formal litigation.  At the end of this session, participants are streamed into either a low-conflict or high-conflict second session.  The high-conflict session is designed for parents who have experienced significant difficulties in their relations and little post-separation contact is expected.  The courts do not require that litigants attend parent education sessions, however, the Family Conciliation Branch and the Comprehensive Co-Mediation Project require that parents seeking mediation services first attend parent education sessions.  The program has been the subject of an evaluation.[4]

Ontario.  Voluntary parent information sessions are offered and funded by Unified Family Courts and through some local and/or community-based programs.  Two information programs are supported through federal funds.  One is the voluntary parent information sessions delivered through the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto, which was established with the assistance of Osgoode Hall Law School and a Donner Foundation grant.  It offers evening information sessions for family law clients.  The other is a mandatory information program offered through the Superior Court of Justice, Toronto.  The Superior Court requires that all litigants in contested cases attend a family law information session before continuing their court proceedings.  The sessions, offered by lawyers and mediators, provide information about separation and divorce, legal procedures, options for dispute resolution and community resources.  The video Separate Ways is used as a presentation aid in the sessions.  Both programs are being evaluated.

Quebec.  The provincial government has not implemented a parent education program, but there are some community-based programs available.  For example, Les Centres Jeunesse de Montreal offers its family mediation and assessment clients a program entitled Co-Parenting After a Separation.  None of these services is supported by federal funds.

New Brunswick.  The province has adopted Manitoba’s parenting program, For the Sake of the Children, revising the session scripts, print documents and video materials to accommodate differences in the two family law systems.  The program, which is delivered by trained contract facilitators, is available in both official languages.  Participation in the program is voluntary, but strongly encouraged by court social workers who have contact with most of the parents during the court intake process.

Prince Edward Island.  The Office of the Attorney General recruits and trains volunteers to deliver the program, which involves two three-hour sessions.  Participation is voluntary, but those who do wish to attend are screened.  Mothers and fathers attend separate sessions, and individuals with histories of domestic violence are excluded.  The program is the subject of an evaluation being done in cooperation with the Department of Justice Canada.[5]

Nova Scotia.  Co-facilitators (a lawyer and a mental health worker) deliver the parent education program, which involves two two-hour sessions, using the Children in the Middle video series.  One session deals with support guidelines, non-adversarial methods of resolving family law matters, and court procedures and the other with relationship and parenting issues.  The program incorporates some skills building aimed at helping parents avoid conflict, especially conflict that implicates children.  Participation in the parent education program is mandatory in three Supreme Court Family Division districts, but is otherwise voluntary.

In addition to the parent education sessions, Nova Scotia is developing a mandatory education program for parties who are dealing with family law matters other than child maintenance in the Supreme Court (Family Division).  The sessions, delivered by court staff and volunteer mental health professionals, will provide basic information on court procedures and inter-personal issues in separation and divorce.

Newfoundland.  The Parents Are Forever program involves four three-hour sessions in successive weeks.  The first session looks at the separation experience from both the parents’and children’s perspectives.  The second deals with relationship and communication skills.  The third and part of the fourth session teach conflict management skills.  The last one-and-a-half hours look at legal issues, procedures and alternatives.  The sessions are facilitated by social workers, assisted by a lawyer.

Northwest Territories.  The Department of Justice, in cooperation with the Legal Services Board, developed a parenting after separation program modelled after the Alberta and British Columbia programs, modified to meet the legal and socio-economic realities of the North.  The program was delivered by contract staff and ran as a pilot project in 1999-2000.  Two sessions per month were offered from September to March.  The sessions are intended to help parents move from a self-centred to a child-centred framework to improve their parenting skills.  There are plans to continue the pilot project in 2002.

Yukon.  The Department of Justice, in partnership with the Women’s Directorate and the Departments of Health and Social Services and Education, developed its program using the Manitoba model.  It now contracts with Partners for Children, a local service organization, to organize and facilitate the sessions and to train additional facilitators from other organizations to deliver the program outside of Whitehorse.  The program is facilitated by a social worker and a lawyer, and has been presented to parents six to eight times per year.  Separate information sessions have also been held for judges, lawyers and community service providers.

While parent education programs focus on the needs and experience of the children affected by separation and divorce, it has been suggested that the children might benefit from more direct services.  To that end, some agencies (government and community-based) have developed education-information programs for children.  One such endeavour was supported through the Child Support Implementation and Enforcement Fund.  Saskatchewan’s Department of Justice developed a curriculum, facilitator’s guides and three videos for education sessions designed for three age groups (6-9, 9-12 and 12-16).  The material covers information about the legal process as well as the emotional experiences and changes in relationships that follow divorce or separation.  The province has made the curriculum, facilitator’s guides and supporting materials available to community groups that organize and deliver sessions for children, and distributed the videos to government agencies, regional library branches, district health boards and interested community agencies.

Mediation and other alternatives to formal litigation for resolving the issues that arise when parents separate and divorce are important features of Canada’s evolving family law system.  All provincial and territorial governments have implemented or are planning to implement programs and procedures to ensure that parents can use the dispute resolution service that is most appropriate to their needs and circumstances.  The following highlights provincial and territorial programs and services.

British Columbia.  The province’s 31 Family Justice Centres provide mediation and other dispute resolution services for people of modest income in cases involving custody, access, guardianship, child support and spousal support.  Centre employees, trained and certified as family mediators, provide the services.  The province has not allocated federal funding to this program.

Alberta.  The Court Services Division of Alberta Justice manages Family Mediation Services, which helps parents referred by other programs, the courts and family law practitioners.  When the parties have a child younger than 18 and the gross income of one of the parents is less than $40,000, the Government of Alberta provides mediation at no cost.  In Edmonton and Calgary, Division staff members serve as mediators, while fee-for-service professionals provide the service in other communities.  Participation is voluntary, and the province estimates that approximately 1,200 couples take advantage of mediation services each year.  The majority of cases proceed to joint mediation, while only a small proportion are screened out as unsuited for mediation.  During 2000‑2001, full agreements were achieved in 61.1 percent of the 1,033 cases that proceeded to joint mediation, and partial agreements were the result in 19.7 percent of cases.

Saskatchewan.  Mediation Saskatchewan offices provide comprehensive mediation when the courts have ordered mediation to resolve a dispute about supervised access or as the result of a custody and access evaluation report.  Others seeking mediation services are provided with pamphlets on the mediation process and how to choose a mediator along with a Mediation Saskatchewan directory that lists all mediators in the province.[6]

Manitoba.  Beginning in 1997-1998, Manitoba allocated federal funds for the development of the Comprehensive Co-Mediation and Mediation Internship Pilot Project.  Its primary objective was to offer mediation services to separated and divorcing parents with children younger than 18.  Its secondary objective was to recruit and train mediators accredited through Family Mediation Canada.  In 1998‑1999, the project recruited 24 interns to train and work as co-mediators (with lawyers) in cases referred by the Family Conciliation Branch, courts, parent education programs, lawyers and others.[7]

In 2000-2001, Manitoba Justice integrated the project into its Family Conciliation Branch, which had previously done mediation only in custody and access cases.  The Branch will maintain the internship component of the project, but on a smaller scale, and offer co-mediation services in separation and divorce cases generally.

Ontario.  The Ministry of the Attorney General provides for voluntary family mediation through all 17 Unified Family Court locations.  Private practitioners contracted by the Ministry deliver the actual mediation services and clients are charged a user fee on a sliding scale.  While the province has not allocated federal resources to this program, it has used the federal funds to support the following two mediation initiatives.

• The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto maintains a roster of family mediators who are available to all court clients.  The clients are required to pay for the service:  mediators on the roster charge $300 per party for the first four hours of mediation (including preparation and screening), after which they may charge their usual fee.  They are also required to provide a minimum of 12 hours of pro bono mediation per year.
• The Kingston pilot was designed to test whether it would be suitable to require litigants in support variation cases to attend a mediation or information session with a mediator.  The sessions, designed to give the parties a chance to learn about mediation and explore whether mediation would be appropriate in their circumstances, were provided by a government-funded family mediation service located at the Kingston Family Court.  The project was completed in September 1999.

Quebec.  Quebec’s legislation requires that married and unmarried parents making an application to the court in a dispute concerning child custody, access, or support or other matrimonial rights attend an information session on mediation before the application is heard.  The session is designed to inform parents about the mediation process, how it works and the role of the mediator.  The program allows parents to satisfy the requirement in one of three ways:  the parents can meet with a mediator of their choosing, attend a group session together, or attend separate group sessions.  At the end of the session, the couple must choose between mediation and court proceedings.  If they proceed with mediation, the services are provided by accredited private practitioners or mediators employed by youth centres who deal only with cases involving children. The provincial government covers the costs of up to six sessions, except in the case of an application for review of an existing order, for which all costs are covered.  Parents requiring additional sessions must pay the fees themselves.  In some circumstances, the courts may require mediation.

New Brunswick.  The New Brunswick Family Support Service has long provided mediation, one-to-one counselling and information services for family support clients.  In 1997-1998, the province expanded this service by adding six court social worker positions, providing them with advanced on- site mediation training.  The ongoing improvements to mediation services are a priority for the province.  The improvements have included the development of screening tools to help assess whether mediation would be an appropriate alternative, production of a mediation manual and training for the court social workers.

Nova Scotia.  Parents appearing in Halifax-Dartmouth Courts on applications dealing with custody, access and support have been able to participate in mediation since 1986.  The service was expanded to the areas served by the Supreme Court (Family Division) in 1999, and now covers Cape Breton Island and the entire Halifax Regional Municipality.  Both court staff and private practitioners provide the service, which is paid for by the client according to a sliding scale.  The province has not allocated federal funding to support the delivery of this service.  However, from 1997 to 2000, the province did use federal funds to design a mediation program and coordinate delivery of a mentoring program.  The mentoring program provided training and supervision by a certified mediator to help trainees gain the experience needed to become certified and be placed on a government roster of professional mediators.

Newfoundland.  In 2000-2001, Newfoundland undertook the Family Dispute Pilot Project to provide mediation and support services in custody and access cases being dealt with by the Supreme Court or the provincial Family Court.   Blomidon Place, a Corner Book community health organization, delivers the services.  Initially the program is providing referral services and mediation.  Support application social workers are the first point of contact with families and can negotiate some consent orders and make referrals.  If referred for formal mediation, a family would meet with a mediator who would file a consent order if agreement is reached about support and child custody and access issues.

Northwest Territories.  The Department of Justice is exploring the feasibility of developing a pilot mediation project in Yellowknife.  An initial feasibility study has been prepared under contract.  The next steps are to review implementation models and options for implementation as well as to look at training mediators to work in the program.

Yukon.  The Yukon Department of Justice is exploring the feasibility of developing a pilot project providing “court-based, court-connected” mediation services to parents dealing with child support, custody and/or access issues.  The Department retained a contractor to develop a framework dealing with issues such as the connection between the court and the mediation service, administrative arrangements, costs to users, the selection and assignment of mediators, the fee structure, and mediator qualifications.  The report has been received and Yukon will undertake further internal discussions before a decision is made as to when and how a pilot project will be initiated.

Nunavut.  The Nunavut Bench and Bar Committee is developing a mediation model that reflects the territory’s cultural, geographic and economic realities through the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Traditional Knowledge) Mediation Initiative.  The first step in the development process was to bring together experienced mediators and Inuit well versed in traditional conflict resolution practices to develop a mediation protocol that will provide the foundation for expanded family law services in Nunavut.  The immediate goal of the project is to train family law mediators who will be able to provide services to assist couples within their own communities.

Provincial and territorial governments have implemented a variety of programs and services that are intended to promote early resolution of child support, custody and access issues while reducing administrative and procedural complexities.  The following examples, each supported by federal funds, illustrate the ways in which the jurisdictions deliver, or plan to deliver, information and intake services to separated and divorced parents seeking to establish or revise child support, custody or access agreements and orders.

Saskatchewan.  Saskatchewan has a provincial Family Law Line which is toll free and complements the line operated by the Department of Justice Canada.  The line was established in April 1997 and continues to operate.  In addition to accepting registrations for the parent education program, the operator answers general questions about the child support guidelines, provides information and distributes information packages about the guidelines and self-help child maintenance variation kits.  The operator encourages callers to seek legal advice and can suggest options such as private lawyers, legal aid or the lawyer referral line.  Callers may also be referred to other government offices or agencies such as the Maintenance Enforcement Office, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency or one of the Court Registrar’s offices.  The operator tracks statistics, including the sex of the caller, where the caller was referred to, the number of information and variation kits distributed and whether the caller was seeking information as an individual or on behalf of an organization.

Nunavut.  In 2000-2001, Nunavut Justice planned to establish the first Family Support Office in Iqaluit that will provide maintenance support and counselling services.  Through the office, a ‘family support counsellor’ will provide family justice information and mediation services in Inuktitut.  Inuit comprise 85 percent of the population.  In the future, the goal is to provide family justice information and mediation services in Inuktitut in all Nunavut communities.

Northwest Territories.  The Court Services Division employs an investigation/action clerk (formerly called the information/intake clerk) to staff an information and public service office located in the Yellowknife courthouse.  The clerk’s duties include accepting registrations for the maintenance enforcement program, processing applications for parent information sessions, preparing and disseminating information to staff, judges and the public, and assisting parents with child support forms, applications and procedures.

Nova Scotia.  Nova Scotia has assigned court intake assistants in each judicial district to help process applications to vary support orders and agreements, handle the new requirements to track documents and assess the completeness of information according to filing requirements and court rules.  The assistants also help litigants, particularly unrepresented litigants, and complete court forms and filing packages, track and follow-up on documents, request information from third parties, provide information on basic procedures, advise people where to go for legal and/or financial advice, and ensure that draft court orders conform with the child support guidelines.

Prince Edward Island.  Since 1997-1998, Prince Edward Island has had child support information officers available to provide parents with information about the guidelines and to help them file applications for variations or new orders.

Ontario.  Since 1999, Ontario has established Family Law Information Centres in court locations across the province.  These centres help clients, particularly those who are not represented by a lawyer and are entering the court system for the first time.  Clients are encouraged to consider resolution of disputes outside the court process, where appropriate.  Court intake clerks working in the Family Law Information Centres provide information about court process and court forms, distribute resource material such as brochures, pamphlets and guides to procedure, and make referrals to community services outside the Court.  Legal Aid Ontario participates in this program by assigning advice lawyers to assist Centre clients by providing summary legal advice.

Alberta. Since 1997-1998, Alberta has maintained Family Law Information Centres in Edmonton and Calgary.  The Centres, operated by the Court Services Division and staffed by lawyers, judicial clerks and information officers, originally focussed on child support matters, but now provide services about any family law matter, including child support, custody, access, spousal support, access enforcement, ex parte[8] restraining orders and emergency protection orders.  The clerks respond to information requests, inform people about the availability and advantages of out-of-court settlements, help unrepresented individuals identify and assemble the information required for applications, and refer people to legal and mediation services.[9]

A number of family justice systems have introduced case management-type procedures to facilitate timely and appropriate handling of individual cases.  Quebec’s Greffiers spéciaux (special court clerks) program, for example, seeks to ensure that proposed child custody and support agreements filed with the court are processed as quickly as possible.  After reviewing proposed agreements involving separation or divorce matters, the clerks take one of three actions.  First, he or she may ratify the agreement.  If however, there is a concern that the agreement is not safeguarding the children’s best interests, the clerk may ask for additional information from the parents.  Finally the clerk can refer the application to the court.

In Ontario, under the Family Law Rules, family case management clerks in the Ontario Court of Justice and Unified Family Court ensure that all clients are made aware of Family Court services, including alternatives to litigation, and that they receive appropriate assistance with the court forms and proceedings.  The 65 clerks vet cases to confirm that parties have filed the appropriate documents, advise them of alternatives to litigation, make referrals to community resources when appropriate, and schedule hearings or case management conferences for cases that are ready to go forward.  The case management clerks offer these services immediately after a case is filed and before a judge is involved, giving the parents an opportunity to reconsider their dispute resolution and settlement options before the litigation process begins.  The timing of these services distinguishes the function of case management clerk from that of Family Law Information Centre staff (see above), who provide clients with options for resolving their disputes and organizing their case before they enter the court process.

British Columbia has undertaken a project to test innovations such as “triage” sessions under new Provincial (Family) Court Rules.  The Family Justice Registry Project, which operates in four locations, requires each party to a Family Relations Act case to attend a session with a triage family justice counsellor prior to a first court appearance, unless the judge agrees that there are “urgent and exceptional circumstances” that require the court to hear the matter at the earliest opportunity.  During the triage session, the counsellor assesses the circumstances of the case, discusses dispute resolution options with them, and makes appropriate referrals for mediation or related services.  Parents choose whether or not to act on the referral.

In addition to the administrative case management programs described above, some provincial and territorial governments have introduced what might be termed judicial case management procedures.  These measures, which are authorized under court rules, are designed to expedite family law cases going to trial.

In Alberta, for example, either parent in a separation or divorce may request case management when he or she feels the other parent is slowing the process or an impasse has been reached.  If the presiding judge rules the case needs case management, a second judge would be assigned as case manager.  The case manager can set court dates and expedite the case through settlement conferences or pre-trial hearings.  An evaluation of the program is planned.

Manitoba has taken a somewhat different approach.  Under its program, new separation and divorce cases are randomly selected each month to be managed and expedited through the justice system with the goal of reducing unnecessary delay and expense by promoting early and fair settlements.  A Family Division judge is assigned to a case, presides at the initial case conference session with the parties and their counsel, and remains available to assist in the management of the case until its resolution.  An evaluation of the program found that the legal community is positive:  93 percent of the lawyers surveyed said it had a positive effect on the legal proceedings and had reduced the number of contested hearings.  The province planned to make the procedure, which was first introduced in 1995, generally available in 2001.

Judicial case management conferences are also used in the Northwest Territories, at the discretion of parents or the court.  The objectives of the conferences are the resolution of disputes without trial, if possible or, when a trial is required, the simplification of issues to make the process more efficient for litigants in terms of time and money.  The process is available for all civil cases, including ones involving custody and access.

Ontario recently implemented new rules for Unified Family Courts and the Ontario Court of Justice.  Specially designed for family cases, these rules emphasize early judicial intervention and early resolution of cases.  The rules incorporate case management principles. Child protection cases have specific timelines, and other domestic cases use a fixed date system for events before trial and a case conference early in the case to schedule events, explore ways to resolve issues in disputes and organize the disclosure of information.  It is expected that the use of pre-trial litigation (motions) at the beginning of a case will largely be replaced with case conferences.  In two Superior Court locations outside the unified family court system, case management rules prescribe a timetable for events in the case.  The case management judge has considerable power, including the power to enforce compliance with the timetable.

The provinces and territories have not allocated federal resources to the judicial case management initiatives described.  The initiatives are, however, illustrative of a broad and general commitment to providing alternatives to trial.

In order to help individuals who wish to obtain or vary a support order without legal representation, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories and Ontario allocated federal resources to produce and distribute self-help support variation kits.  In 2000‑2001, Nova Scotia introduced another self-help tool.  The province has set up self-help workstations in three Supreme Court (Family Division) sites where clients can use computers and formatted forms to prepare child support applications and the requisite forms.

Supervised access services provide a safe setting for children to spend time with non-custodial parents or other persons, such as a grandparent, when there are concerns for the safety of the children or the custodial parent.  Typically, community groups provide the services, some with government funding or other forms of assistance.  In 2000, supervised access was available in some cities in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia.

Ontario, which allocates federal funds to supervised access services, is expanding its program from the 36 sites in 2000 to all 54 court districts by 2003.  The services are delivered by community-based agencies, such as children’s mental health centres, neighbourhood support centres, the YMCA and local children’s aid societies, that operate with a mix of paid staff and volunteers.  The agencies receive financial support from the Ministry of the Attorney General.  Most referrals to supervised access programs come from the courts and lawyers for the parents.  Between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000, approximately 29,000 visits and exchanges involving 12,100 families took place at 36 centres and satellite locations.

In 2000-2001, Nova Scotia used federal funding to prepare a best practices manual and to work with community organizations to develop options for supervised access services delivered by those organizations.  The supervised access program would be delivered in areas served by the Supreme Court (Family Division).

In making determinations about custody and access, judges may order social or psychological assessments, or both.  The assessment process provides the judge and the parents with independent, written information to help them make custody and access determinations that are in the children’s best interests.  Commonly, the assessor interviews and observes the children with each parent and submits a report and, in many cases, recommendations on the parenting arrangement.  The report becomes part of the evidence before the judge and its assessor may be called to testify.

In 2000‑2001, New Brunswick used federal funding to support assessment services for families in financial need.  The Court Services Division, which administers the services, maintains a list of qualified assessors from whom eligible clients can obtain assessments.  While New Brunswick was the only jurisdiction to use federal resources for this purpose, others do provide or facilitate access to assessments in custody cases.  The services may be provided by social workers or mental health professionals employed by government agencies or private practitioners.

In October 1999, Ontario began a two-year pilot project to test a new approach to resolving the access-based disputes that occur in approximately 20 percent of separations and divorces.  The primary aim of the study is to examine the effectiveness of two different types of intervention:

• a focused social work intervention, which seeks to identify the conflict that is underlying the dispute and assist the parents in formulating a parenting plan in the interests of the child; and
• a focused legal representation, which targets the legal issues before the court and provides a legal resolution in the children’s interests.

The project was the subject of research using a randomized, future-oriented quasi-experimental design to examine the effectiveness of the two types of focused interventions, as compared with traditional assessments.  The preliminary research findings are positive.[10]

Saskatchewan introduced special custody and access assessments in 2000-2001, that focus on the children’s perspective in separation and divorce.  The Children’s Voices reports are completed more quickly than the full custody and access reports because the assessor only interviews the child.  Development of the Children’s Voices reports was in response to a recurring theme in both national and provincial public consultations held recently in Saskatchewan to hear the perspectives and opinions of the children who are the subjects of custody and access issues.  The Children’s Voices reports are only available by court order.  Once ordered, a social worker interviews the child and prepares a written report for the court expressing the child’s views.  These assessments are designed for families whose children are of an age or maturity level that their opinions can be accurately expressed.  The speed with which the reports are available benefits both the families involved and the courts.

The introduction of child support guidelines and related provincial legislative reforms led directly to a need to review and modify court rules and associated forms in most provinces and territories.  Federal resources supported rules revision projects in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces.  These projects not only sought to make changes demanded by amendments to the Divorce Act, but also to introduce administrative efficiencies and, more importantly, reforms that allow and encourage alternatives, such as mediation, that support the broad objectives of child-centred family law services.  Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for example, in reviewing and modifying their rules introduced provisions to make it easier for parents to seek resolutions by agreement and have such agreements readily processed.  British Columbia, which adopted an entirely new set of rules for provincial courts, made provision for special procedures such as family law triage counsellors, while Ontario, which undertook a similarly comprehensive review, provided for case management in all family cases and paid particular attention to devising forms that are easier to understand and use, especially by self-represented litigants.

As might be expected with any significant changes in court procedures, provincial and territorial governments implementing revised court rules and forms devoted resources to training for judges, court staff and members of the family law bar, and to publishing public legal information materials for family law clients and the public.  In addition, many rules changes resulted in requirements and opportunities for modifications and enhancements of court information management systems, as was the case with Manitoba’s auto-order project.

Following the introduction of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, each province and territory had to decide whether it would adopt the federal guidelines or create its own for application in provincial family law matters.  Since May 1997, all jurisdictions but two have adopted the federal guidelines, or a modified version thereof.  Quebec has implemented child support guidelines that differ from the federal guidelines in apportioning the presumed cost of raising children between the parents according to the income of each.  Alberta has yet to determine whether it will adopt federal guidelines in provincial legislation (although it has implemented them in practice) or introduce another approach.  In the interim, the Federal Child Support Guidelines are applied under the guidance of a Court of Queen’s Bench practice note.  In Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Manitoba, the provincial guidelines apply in cases of divorce when both parents are normally residents of the province, under a designation made under subsection 2(5) of the Divorce Act.

British Columbia, New Brunswick, Yukon and Newfoundland used federal funds to support the development and implementation of their guidelines.  The funds supported policy work and consultations leading to the eventual adoption of legislation, training for court personnel and family law professionals, publication of public information materials and the introduction of procedural and administrative changes.

In 2000, Manitoba implemented its automated orders (auto-orders) system, beginning in Winnipeg’s Masters Maintenance Enforcement Court and, subsequently, throughout the Court of Queen’s Bench, Family Division.  The system has two related objectives:  to ensure that the language of orders is clear and consistent, and to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the procedure.  The first phase of the auto-orders project, begun in 1997-1998, developed standard order clauses to eliminate ambiguities and permit the design of a system to capture data needed for the Maintenance Enforcement Program.  The use of the standard clauses is mandatory, unless a court expressly approves an exception.  The second phase, in 1998-1999, introduced electronic filing and the enabled production of automated orders in the courtroom.  Manitoba Justice then proceeded with preparations for the implementation of an automated system.  The implementation of the auto-orders system was supported by communications and training activities directed to internal users (court staff) and external users (law firms), external testing and refinements to court rules.

Ontario and Nunavut allocated federal resources to studies related to auto-orders.  In 1998-1999, Ontario carried out a pilot project that tested the automated preparation of child support orders in family law proceedings.  The evaluation of the pilot concluded that to be successful in the province’s family courts, a system would have to provide for automation of all family orders.  As a result, the Ministry of the Attorney General decided to defer consideration of such a project.  In 2000‑2001, Nunavut’s Family Law Working Group began planning for implementation of an auto-order system building on the work done in Manitoba.  The project produced draft family orders that were submitted to the courts for review and approval before a pilot project was undertaken.

Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador allocated federal funding to increase the capacity of their administrative information management systems in response to implementation of the child support guidelines.  In addition to installing additional equipment, the Quebec Department of Justice developed a database of all family-related child support and mediation cases, while Newfoundland and Labrador undertook the development of a new case management computer system to automate manual reporting procedures and improving efficiency.

When the Federal Child Support Guidelines came into force, provincial and territorial governments took steps to deal with the resulting increase in applications to vary child support orders and agreements.  Ontario and British Columbia, for example, addressed the resulting demand for information about and assistance with child support applications in individual cases by creating new positions:  intake clerks in Ontario and child support clerks in British Columbia. In both provinces, the clerks helped clients making child support or a variation application by distributing information kits, responding to enquiries, helping prepare court documents and other related activities.  In 2000‑2001, the functions of intake clerks in Ontario were phased out as Family Law Information Centres and case management clerks were brought on-stream, while British Columbia phased out some child support clerk positions the previous year.  Saskatchewan, rather then creating new positions with specialized functions, employed additional court clerks to deal with increased workloads, and modified the responsibilities of the existing position as needed to deal with the introduction of the guidelines.

The Yukon Department of Justice responded to the new demands by establishing the Child Support Guidelines Information Office in the Whitehorse courthouse, and by setting up a dedicated phone line.  A part-time clerk was assigned to the office and phone line and was responsible for answering inquiries, making referrals and preparing and distributing information packages.  A child support information officer was also available on a part-time basis to provide information to the public on the guidelines, tax changes and settlement options and to help parents with variation applications for child support consent orders.  This position was discontinued after two months of operation due to limited demand.  Information is currently available from the project officer and through the Maintenance Enforcement Program office in the Whitehorse courthouse.

Newfoundland has, since 1993, assigned social workers employed by the Department of Human Resources and Employment to help social assistance recipients apply for and obtain support orders.  The service was expanded in 1997‑1998 and the duties of the support application social workers modified to include responsibilities for accepting original and variation applications, helping applicants collect and collate financial disclosure documentation, and prepare agreement documents.  In addition, the workers meet with the parents, individually or jointly, to try to negotiate an agreement.  If such an agreement is reached, the worker drafts a consent order for confirmation by the courts.  Newfoundland has maintained the expanded support application social workers services.  Following the completion of a program evaluation[11] in 2000, the province is exploring changes that would produce integrated services, such as the Corner Brook project involving the community mental health program, Blomidon Place.

Alberta Justice used federal funding to support policy and program planning activities.  The department’s Family Law Branch assigned a lawyer to develop proposals for policy and procedural changes, act as a resource to litigation counsel, and be responsible for continuing education for legal and other personnel.  It also assigned two lawyers to work part time with the courts, the Maintenance Enforcement Program and Alberta Children’s Services to develop new policies, protocols and forms.

New Brunswick responded to the increased demand from parents waiting to get an appointment with court-based alternative dispute resolution services by redesigning the court social worker service.  It transferred the responsibility for paralegal work from the social workers to dedicated paralegal staff, working directly with Legal Aid New Brunswick.  This freed the social workers to focus on screening, mediation and settlement services.

In 1997-2000, the Law Society of Saskatchewan maintained a toll-free line that provided callers with a list of family lawyers who offered half-hour consultations for a nominal fee (approximately $25).  The service was intended to help low- and middle-income people not eligible for legal aid services to pursue variations.  The Law Society responded to an average of 16 calls per month from April 1997 to January 1998.  Subsequently, the demand for service dropped to one to five calls per month.  As a result, in 1998-1999, the use of a special line was abandoned and the service has since been managed through the Society’s general enquiry line.

In 1997, New Brunswick established a child support information centre in Moncton, where a roster of duty counsel and a local tax specialist held clinics every Thursday evening.  The demand for services, especially of the tax specialist, was very low and the program was redesigned so that legal services were delivered only on referral from Family Support Services and the tax specialist only on the referral of a duty counsel.  In 1998‑1999, the revised service was made available in eight communities.

Prince Edward Island first retained an accountant as a financial counsellor to help the court and court staff with income determinations in 1997‑1998.  Under the Rules of Court, the counsellor is available to assist in complex income determination cases.  During the implementation period, the accountant also participated in training.

Alternative Mechanisms to Determine, Vary or Recalculate Child Support

The child support amounts set out in agreements and orders can be modified as the personal and financial circumstances of separated and divorced parents and their children change.  Normally, the procedures followed to vary an order parallel those used to determine the original arrangements—that is, an application must be filed with the court and a judge must issue an order modifying the current arrangement.  Several jurisdictions have attempted to simplify the process for all concerned through revised procedures, special pilot projects or both.  Some of these innovations will be based on a recalculation procedure made possible by section 25.1 of the Divorce Act.

Under section 25.1, the federal Minister of Justice can enter into an agreement with a province or territory that authorizes a designated child support service “to recalculate, at regular intervals, in accordance with the applicable guidelines, the amount of the child support order on the basis of updated income information.”   The recalculated child support amount would come into effect within 31 days, unless one of the parents makes an application to have the matter reviewed by the court.

Four jurisdictions have allocated federal resources to support the development, testing and implementation of less onerous and more timely child support variation and recalculation procedures.

• Nunavut Justice has developed and implemented standardized forms, and increased information services and individualized assistance with document preparation, all to make the variation process less burdensome.
• In Nova Scotia, intake assistants assess each case to identify those that would be appropriate for mediation and conciliation services designed to help parents arrive at agreements on recalculation.  Any resulting agreement is formalized as a consent order under court rules.
• New Brunswick is exploring an administrative hearing mechanism to deal with child support variations.  Under the proposed procedure, a hearing officer would be able to compel parents to appear at the hearing and disclose information.
• Saskatchewan plans to develop a dispute resolution service to assist low-income clients of the Maintenance Enforcement Office to vary or recalculate their child support orders.

Three provinces have developed and are implementing projects that will handle child support variation applications using procedures of the kind envisioned by section 25.1 of the Divorce Act.

• Manitoba’s Family Law Branch is studying the feasibility of a pilot project that will provide for the administrative recalculation of support amounts by a team of legal and administrative officers.
• British Columbia’s Ministry of Attorney General is establishing a pilot project in Kelowna that offers a comprehensive child support service.  The service will be offered to parents seeking to establish or vary an original child support order.  An important element of this extra service will be links with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, the Parenting After Separation program, Debtor’s Assistance, legal advice lawyers and the courts.
• Newfoundland has established Family Justice Services Western, a partnership with a local community health organization to deliver education, mediation and counselling services to children and families with issues related to custody, child support, access and spousal support.

Software developers have designed applications that do the calculation of basic support payments under child support guidelines and all provinces and territories have provided such tools to the judiciary, court staff and others to permit them to make quick and accurate calculations.  British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have devoted federal funds to purchase a site licence for the software, to train users, and, in some cases, to lease computers.

Enforcement Activities

Provincial and territorial governments established maintenance enforcement programs in the mid-1980s to provide an intermediary service for those paying support and those receiving support payments.  In most provinces, their primary function is to receive payments from debtors and forward them to the creditor once the funds have been cleared through a trust account. The greater challenge for enforcement programs arises when debtors fail to make payments in a timely fashion or at all.  When this happens, the programs attempt to trace and locate the individuals who have defaulted and to obtain the money that is due.  In Quebec, the maintenance enforcement program (which is located within Revenu Québec) advances the amount of the periodic payment to any creditor on income assistance.  To this end, legislatures have given maintenance enforcement programs the authority to recover the support owing from assets, by garnisheeing income and restricting access to privileges such as motor vehicle licences.  In 1996, the federal government amended the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEA) and other statutes to introduce measures such as licence suspension procedures to help encourage compliance with child support agreements and orders.  In addition, the Department of Justice Canada has supported national planning and research work with the provincial and territorial governments to identify and implement stronger enforcement measures through provincial and territorial laws and programs.  This federal-provincial-territorial collaboration has facilitated a range of administrative and operational improvements designed to increase the effectiveness of maintenance enforcement services.

The Department of Justice Canada administers the FOAEA Act through the Family Law Assistance Section in Ottawa.  The provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs (MEP) are the main users of the three FOAEA services:  tracing, interception and licence denial.  The tracing service provides MEPs, from federal data banks, with the residential address and employer name and address of individuals who have obligations under a support, access or custody order or agreement.  The interception service allows for the garnishment of designated federal monies payable, including income tax refunds, employment insurance benefits, old age security, Canada Pension Plan benefits, interest on regular Canada Savings Bonds and selected Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada programs.  Finally, the licence denial service, which was implemented in 1997, processes MEP applications to suspend and deny Canadian passports and federally issued licenses, such as aviation and navigation certificates, for individuals who are in default of family support by at least $3,000 or are three payments in arrears.

In order to increase the efficiency of its service, the FOAEA program established an information management system and procedures that permit provincial and territorial MEP staff to request and obtain FOAEA services via the Internet.  The design and implementation of this system required that each MEP develop and implement information management and communications solutions of its own to automate file and data exchange with the FOAEA system.  Typically, implementation of such a solution called for changes in service delivery procedures, system development and design, acquisition of equipment and information management and security software, and staff training.

All the provinces and territories, save Manitoba and Nunavut, allocated federal funding resources to assist with this work.

As part of the Child Support Initiative, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics launched the National Maintenance Enforcement Survey to collect and publish national information about support compliance and enforcement.  The Centre, in addition to developing a centralized data processing and reporting system, has contracted with the provinces and territories to build interfaces to extract maintenance enforcement data from their databases.  Governments will use such information for policy and program development, research and evaluation.  The academic community, non-governmental organizations and the general public will also find it useful.  This aggregate survey collects information about cases in maintenance enforcement programs, describing the following:

• the compliance and arrears status of payors, according to the amount due;
• the amounts of money and proportions received;
• for cases in arrears, the percentage of dollars due that have been received and the time since the last payment;
• the number of cases in which the recipient has payments assigned to social assistance;
• the types of enforcement activities employed, by volume;
• information about default hearings;
• the people involved (e.g. median age, number of children and sex);
• the proportion of cases involving reciprocal maintenance enforcement; and
• the authority (Divorce Act or provincial or territorial statute) under which the support order was made.

British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Yukon, Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories, New Brunswick and Alberta each used Department of Justice Canada funds to design and implement system changes to meet the Centre’s requirements.

Provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs must handle thousands of transactions daily, work that is dependant on effective automated information and financial management systems.  As laws, procedures and service standards change, these systems must be updated, upgraded or, in some cases, replaced.  Since 1997, the federal government has supported this critical work in all provinces and territories.

The following are samples of work done in each jurisdiction that illustrate the kinds of information systems development efforts that were needed to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of maintenance enforcement programs.

British Columbia.  The Family Maintenance Enforcement Program made changes to its system to implement electronic commerce, a new systems methodology, review of the system architecture and production of auto-generated letters.

Alberta.  Alberta Justice hired systems consultants to conduct preliminary needs assessments and a business analysis prior to the design, development and implementation of a replacement for its 15-year-old tracking system.

New Brunswick.  The province modified its existing system to ensure Year 2000 compliance and improved table maintenance capabilities.  As well, it consolidated the eight regional databases to improve service to clients.

Newfoundland.  The province has been involved in replacing the program’s mainframe system with a distributed-server system that will also be accessed by Human Resources and Employment staff.

Northwest Territories.  The territorial government purchased computers and applications to process data and manage the program and has begun to adapt its existing applications using in-house technical support to ensure that its maintenance enforcement system can deliver the required data.

Nunavut.  Nunavut Justice began planning system development and procedural redesign work that will link its maintenance enforcement program to court files and related computer records.

Ontario.  The Family Responsibility Office developed a Windows-based interface for its mainframe case management system, a document management module to allow users to attach case documents to screens via desktop document scanning, and personal productivity tools to reduce delays and allow users to generate letters and reports.

The Family Responsibility Office, which retains private lawyers to act on its behalf in maintenance enforcement proceedings, also wanted to ensure that these lawyers have timely case management information throughout the province.  To this end, the Office developed a system that gives these lawyers access to support enforcement documents via remote dial-in to the agency’s mainframe system.  The remote access system required the development and installation of software and telecommunications solutions capable of ensuring the security and privacy of personal data.

Prince Edward Island.  The province updated the accounting module of its application, allowing it to track arrears information more accurately.

Quebec.  The province reviewed the performance and capacity of its maintenance enforcement computer system to assess its performance, define client needs and describe the work processes.  The work involved modifying the program’s financial system to ensure accurate reports and acceptable financial controls that meet general accounting standards.

Saskatchewan.  The maintenance enforcement office implemented system reviews and modifications to ensure Year 2000 compliance, improved its table maintenance capabilities, and performed new functions required by legislative changes.

Yukon.  The territory’s Department of Justice looked into adapting a system from another province or territory to replace its outdated maintenance enforcement computer system in the expectation that it would save time and money.  However, the requirements analysis and other assessments demonstrated that such a solution would be more expensive than building an entirely new system.  Therefore, the territorial government has contracted for the development of a new information system.

Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan evaluated and implemented electronic banking procedures and applications.  Typically, these measures allow for pre-authorized payment arrangements for debtors and direct deposits to creditors’ accounts that reduce collection costs and minimize delays in payments to creditors.

British Columbia’s work in this area illustrates the effort required to develop and implement electronic banking procedures.  In 1997-1999, the province hired a consultant to assess the feasibility of automating transactions with the province’s Treasury Branch to allow for the use of automatic bank withdrawal from payors’ accounts, coded invoices for payors through selected institutions, direct deposit to recipients’ accounts, electronic fund transfers from attachees, and direct payment of maintenance through protected services.  The review and development process, which continued in 2000‑2001, included implementing the direct deposit arrangements for payments to recipients and online and telephone banking systems to benefit payors.

Several jurisdictions have allocated federal funding to support the design and implementation of procedures and programs to improve the ability of maintenance enforcement programs to locate debtors and collect arrears.

Yukon.  The Department of Justice, on a trial basis, employed a tracking investigative officer to reduce the collection problems associated with the seasonal nature of the Yukon workforce.  The officer used government databases and field investigations to locate defaulters.

New Brunswick.  The New Brunswick Department of Justice negotiated access to databases maintained by other provincial departments to facilitate debtor tracing.

British Columbia.  The Family Justice Programs Division implemented information systems enhancements to support provincial enforcement legislation (i.e. driver’s licence non-renewal or denial, and credit bureau reporting), to obtain the information needed to attach provincial funds owing to payors in default, and automate tracing procedures.

Alberta.  As a result of program reviews conducted in 1997 and 1998, Alberta introduced a special investigations unit.  The unit seeks and executes third-party judgments and performs collections audit functions for the program.

Alberta has also sought to improve collections on behalf of creditors by implementing default hearings.  The province’s Maintenance Enforcement Act allows the Maintenance Enforcement Program to serve a summons on a defaulting debtor requiring him or her to appear before the court to:

• explain to the court why the maintenance order should not be enforced;
• be examined under oath about his or her finances; and
• show why he or she should not be committed to prison for wilfully defaulting on maintenance payments.

Default hearings are held before a Master of the Court of Queen’s Bench, who has the power to issue court orders when other collection efforts have failed and Program authorities believe that the debtor has the ability to pay but has wilfully not done so.  When possible, a senior collection officer meets with the debtor before the start of a hearing to try to negotiate a reasonable payment plan so that a full hearing will not be necessary.  In a hearing, the Maintenance Enforcement Program is represented by its legal counsel who, along with the Master, can examine the debtor under oath.

Ontario.  The Family Responsibility Office has negotiated arrangements with provincial government agencies such as the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council and CORPAY which manages the Government of Ontario’s corporate pay and benefits) to obtain information to help trace defaulters.  In each case, the Office and the other agency have to negotiate freedom of information responsibilities and memoranda of understanding.

The Family Responsibility Office also tested the use of private collection agencies with positive results and expanded the project.  Under the revised project mandate, companies selected through a bidding process seek to collect arrears in cases that have been delinquent for six or more months.

Quebec.  In 1999-2000, the province’s maintenance enforcement program assessed the feasibility of negotiating agreements among the provinces and territories that would provide inter-jurisdictional access to motor vehicle licensing databases to facilitate debtor tracing.  The project was undertaken with the expectation that inter-jurisdictional cooperation would allow maintenance enforcement agencies to process enforcement applications more quickly, improve the productivity of enforcement staff, increase the number of cases processed, and improve client service.

As a result of the 1997 amendments to the FOAEA Act, maintenance enforcement programs can now apply to have passports and certain federal licences withdrawn or denied when the holder or applicant is more than three months or $3,000 in arrears on support payments.  The expectation is that the defaulter’s inability to obtain these privileges will motivate greater compliance.  With the same objectives in mind, provincial and territorial authorities have considered, and in many cases implemented, similar enforcement measures affecting licences and privileges governed by provincial law.  In a number of cases, provinces have allocated federal resources to support their study and/or implementation of such strategies.

Saskatchewan.  The province implemented provincial legislation allowing the Maintenance Enforcement Office to report defaulters to the credit bureau.  It also took steps to improve the administration of the provincial licence withholding process by assigning a licence withholding clerk to monitor case files to identify default payors who meet the criteria for licence withholding, prepare notices and initiate withholding action as appropriate.

Quebec and New Brunswick.  Both provinces have used federal funding to support studies of the feasibility and likely costs of implementing additional enforcement tools such as licence denial and credit bureau reporting.

Ontario.  The Family Responsibility Office began planning for significant changes to its information management system to facilitate implementation of driver’s licence withholding measures.

British Columbia.  The province implemented six new enforcement provisions beginning in 1998‑1999:  credit bureau reporting, driver’s licence withholding, payment conferencing (i.e. meetings between payors and Program staff to obtain voluntary compliance), personal property registry liens, data matches with possible income sources, and enforcement against corporations.  These measures will help the program pursue delinquent payors who cannot be located, “hide behind a corporate veil,” or do not have regular incomes.

Alberta, Quebec and New Brunswick each allocated federal resources to meet increased demands for services associated with the rise in the number of child support variations following implementation of child support guidelines.

Maintenance enforcement programs must deal with high volumes of calls from paying and receiving parents inquiring about the status of their accounts.  In order to address this continuing demand for individual information, several of the programs have introduced automated telephone systems, frequently referred to as integrated voice response (IVR) systems.  The IVR services operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week to give clients access to case-specific enforcement status and payment information, as well as information about enforcement legislation and other related matters.  Typically, clients must register for the service and obtain a PIN number to ensure the security of personal information on the automated line.  During office hours, clients who cannot obtain the information they seek through the automated service can have their calls forwarded to enforcement staff or leave a detailed message asking for staff assistance.

Prince Edward Island, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories, Alberta and British Columbia used federal resources to design, install and maintain their IVR systems.  The specific work ranged from hardware installation to the preparation of the scripts for the audio recordings that provide callers with general public information about enforcement laws and procedures.  New Brunswick is planning on using federal funds to design, install and/or maintain their IVR system and is targeting implementation for April 1, 2002.

In September 2000, Alberta implemented a service to give MEP clients access to their account information via the Internet.  Alberta’s MEP Accounts Online project, which was supported by federal funding, is the first of its kind in Canada.  It allows both creditors and debtors to access current account status (the last four payments), request a statement, report their change of address, and send an e-mail inquiry or comment.  The system complements existing services provided by collection officers and the Integrated Voice Response Telephone System.  Prince Edward Island is designing a similar system.

Provincial and territorial MEPs allocated federal resources to projects designed to evaluate and enhance client services.

Quebec.  In 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, the province’s maintenance enforcement program hired twelve recent graduates, 8 specializing in family law and 4 in accounting, to do outreach work with its staff and clients through face-to-face meetings, telephone calls and other means to provide information on the maintenance enforcement program, address concerns and gather suggestions for program improvements.  The program also conducted studies on a range of measures intended to better meet client needs.

Saskatchewan.  In 2000-2001, the Maintenance Enforcement Office employed two client service representatives, whose responsibilities include routinely contacting new registrants to ensure that they are familiar with the Office’s services and procedures and responding to questions and complaints.

British Columbia.  The Family Justice Programs Division conducted a series of recipient and payor surveys to identify systemic client relation problems and track levels of client satisfaction.  The sample of payors ranged from exemplary payors to those who had never complied.  The data generated information about overall satisfaction, suggested improvements and ways to decrease payor resistance, and improved client knowledge of federal and provincial enforcement initiatives.

In 2000-2001, in order to evaluate ways to further enhance client services, British Columbia’s Family Maintenance Enforcement Program established an outreach project.  Under the project, the Program assigned enforcement officers to liaise with Family Justice Centres located in the Lower Mainland and in Kelowna to provide services to Centre clients.  The enforcement officers participate in case conferences, meet with individual clients and conduct payment conferences.

Ontario.  In 2000-2001, the Family Responsibility Office conducted outreach sessions and workshops targeted to specific clients or client service provider groups.  Office staff provided legal outreach sessions to family law associations, the Canadian Bar Association (Ontario), the Family Bench and Bar and new panel lawyers.

British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec used federal funds for staff training and related activities in addition to the training associated with specific initiatives such as new enforcement measures and the implementation of information system changes.  British Columbia, for example, developed guidelines to assist staff involved in negotiating voluntary payments.  Alberta published a newsletter to keep agency staff informed of procedural and policy changes as new procedures were implemented in 1997-1998 and, in 1999-2000, hired a senior program advisor whose responsibilities included designing and managing enhanced training for enforcement personnel.  In 2000-2001, Ontario conducted a number of orientation sessions for new staff, and planned and prepared an upcoming course called Dealing with Difficult Clients for all Family Responsibility Office staff.  Quebec, in order to improve the delivery of work-related information to staff and management, developed an Intranet that gives maintenance enforcement program staff ready access to up-to-date user guides, procedures manuals, forms and the other material they require to perform their duties.

Reciprocal Enforcement

For the most part, maintenance enforcement programs have been designed to facilitate support payments when the recipient and the payor reside in the same province.  When a parent relocates, as happens with growing frequency, the maintenance enforcement program for the original jurisdiction may turn to another program for assistance in collecting support payments or making disbursements.  The provincial and territorial governments have passed legislation and developed bilateral arrangements for the reciprocal enforcement of support orders in these cases.  Several jurisdictions allocated federal resources to support these efforts.

Saskatchewan.  The Saskatchewan Maintenance Enforcement Office helped draft the provincial Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act and prepared for the introduction and implementation of the legislation.

Quebec.  The maintenance enforcement program, with the objective of reducing delays, reviewed reciprocal enforcement files and procedures to identify problems.  The work was done to develop short-and long-term improvements in work processes and information systems support.

Prince Edward Island.  The province undertook a study to review the requirements for conducting business between the Maintenance Enforcement Program in Prince Edward Island and others in the Atlantic provinces.  The work focused on possible technical solutions to the problems associated with the exchange of case and client information across jurisdictions.  It planned to address current needs in Atlantic Canada in 2001-2002 and contribute to a national study.

Ontario.  The Family Responsibility Office undertook three projects.  The first was designed to develop a new case management system to better handle an estimated 12,500 active reciprocal enforcement cases (about 5,000 of which are requests received from other jurisdictions, with the balance being requests made to others).  The second project produced a formal policies and procedures manual for the Reciprocity Unit based on current and best practices.  The final project, which required the assistance of other provinces and territories, updated the database of Ontario residents paying support to persons in other provinces.

The Family Responsibility Office also studied procedures that would allow smaller provinces and territories (fewer than 200 payments) to submit reciprocal payments electronically.  The procedure would utilize E-CLIPS, an application introduced in 1999 that allows people and companies to remit support payments over a secure Internet-based program developed in partnership with the Royal Bank.

Newfoundland.  In 1997-1998, Newfoundland’s Maintenance Enforcement Program hired a second reciprocal enforcement officer to provide or collect up-to-date information for effective enforcement.

British Columbia.  The province has undertaken information systems development, studies and service delivery changes to improve its services in reciprocal enforcement cases.  The system development activities included setting up query access to the Family Search Program case management system, and new screens for the reciprocal case transmittal forms, and upgrading equipment.  The service delivery activities included policy and procedures development, training, orientation for lawyers, and a study of the feasibility of using integrated voice response for reciprocal jurisdiction clients.

In addition to the work on its own system, British Columbia led the development of standard forms for use in reciprocal arrangements.  The directors of the Canadian maintenance enforcement programs, the Family Law Committee and US federal government officials approved the forms in September 1999.

Policy Development, Research and Evaluation

Government agencies are expected to continually monitor the programs and services they deliver to ensure that they are meeting their objectives and offering the best possible solutions.  The federal government has allocated funds to support the cycle of research, program development and implementation and evaluation that supports pragmatic program improvements in the area of family law services.

Many provinces and territories have invested federal funding to monitor and evaluate family law reforms and special projects, gather data and carry out similar work to support ongoing policy and program improvements:

Nunavut.  In 1999-2001, the Nunavut Department of Justice did a survey to gather information about current and traditional responses to family breakdown, the extent to which family law court procedures are used and the factors influencing the level of use, and the community’s knowledge and perceptions of the existing family law system.  The survey’s goal was to obtain data that was relevant to Nunavut while being comparable with statistical data available for other provinces and territories.  To this end, the project, using a survey instrument adapted from Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey on Families, collected data from more than 400 respondents in five representative communities.  In addition, the project gathered information about the formal and informal services available in each community to assist in cases of family breakdown.

In a related effort, representatives of the Nunavut Department of Justice met with individuals, local groups and territorial organizations interested in family law to identify community concerns, assess general knowledge about the system and explore opportunities for legal and program changes.  The key areas of concern identified were the parental and spousal rights and obligations of common law couples, the appropriateness of child support obligations, and the role of extended families.  The consultations also found that the underlying principles of the family law system are largely consistent with community norms and values, but that the absence of knowledge about the system and the limited services available to families involved in separation and divorce represent significant barriers to parents taking full advantage of the family justice system.

Northwest Territories.  In 2000-2001, the Northwest Territories’ Court Services Division developed proposals for amendments to territorial legislation to allow for the administrative recalculation of child support orders.  In addition, the Division planned to examine whether the Northwest Territories could implement an accredited mediation service.

Saskatchewan.  The province developed internal review and evaluation processes in 1997-1998, establishing a five-year framework for monitoring and evaluating new and enhanced activities.  The planning identified two broad categories of evaluation issues:  the impact of child support guidelines and the new tax treatment, and the impact of the provincial implementation strategy.  In 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, the province conducted a survey of maintenance enforcement clients to, in part, assess their awareness of and opinions about child support guidelines.  It also published a review of its mediation services.[12]

Quebec.  In 1998-1999, Quebec created a follow-up committee to evaluate the family mediation program and another to look at the province’s model for determining child support.  The committees are expected to assess whether the province’s legislative objectives have been met, as well as to evaluate the implementation of the guidelines and related services.  The report of the follow-up committee and a second report outlining the steps to implement mediation were presented to the Minister of Justice in March 2000 and June 2001, respectively.  The reports are available on the Internet (http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca).  In 1998-2000, the province allocated federal resources for research officers to provide the committees with technical support, including the development of data collection tools.  The province also allocated funds for an international survey of child support and support enforcement programs to obtain an informed portrait of recent developments and to look for new ways of improving its services.

Prince Edward Island.  Prince Edward Island monitors court and alternative dispute resolution approaches and has designed an evaluation framework for pilot projects, which was the basis for evaluations of the information officer project and the parent education program.

Ontario.  Ontario also developed an evaluation framework and established mechanisms to capture data relating to implementation and impact of the guidelines.  In addition, it evaluated its auto-order pilot project, the focused assessment project and other family justice initiatives, while continuing to contribute to national research planning and development.  The Family Responsibility Office completed all preliminary research and development work for a survey of its clients in 2000‑2001.  This included an extensive review of client satisfaction surveys recently undertaken by federal and provincial governments, with a particular emphasis on the experience of maintenance enforcement programs in other jurisdictions.

Newfoundland.  The province has evaluated, and continues to monitor, the parent education program and Support Application Social Worker services.

New Brunswick.  New Brunswick collected divorce data to help design performance measures and evaluate projects.

Manitoba.  Manitoba Justice has completed an evaluation of the parent education program and is pursuing evaluations of the co-mediation project and other initiatives.

British Columbia.  The province allocated federal resources to support policy development tasks and activities such as new family court rules and collecting information and data to support evaluation and research.  It has also pursued a development-implementation-evaluation strategy for a series of special projects and initiatives, including the child support clerk function, the Rule 5 Pilot (Triage) Project, and the mandatory parenting education project.  The province has also commissioned research to assess the degree to which payor income and other factors influenced child support amounts that were established by orders before the guidelines were introduced.

Alberta.  Alberta evaluated its Parenting After Separation seminars through the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family.  An evaluation of the Family Law Information Centres (formerly the Court of Queen’s Bench Child Support Centres) was carried out by Praxis Consulting.  The province has been conducting a general review of family law, including child custody and access issues.  In the course of the consultations on family law reform (PAA 2), Albertans will have an opportunity to comment on the province’s proposal to formally legislate use of the child support guidelines for matters under provincial jurisdiction.

Given the change in approach to determining child support amounts introduced by the child support guidelines, federal and provincial officials agreed that information about support orders and variation orders made on or after May 1, 1997, was a priority for any national research strategy.  As there is no national statistical mechanism that generates this kind of data, the national Survey of Child Support Awards was undertaken to get some early indications about the implementation of the guidelines, and to provide for ongoing or periodic collection of information from the courts.  Court staff at about 16 court locations in 11 provinces and territories collect the data.  Federal funding helped cover the staff costs to gather and report on the original data.

Public Awareness and Professional Training

Child Support Guidelines

In implementing child support guidelines, the federal, provincial and territorial governments worked to ensure that those affected by the changes would have every opportunity to obtain enough information to assess the implications of the changes on them.  The following identifies the variety of communications and public information strategies that were undertaken with federal financial assistance.

Brochures and Printed Materials.  All provinces and territories distributed printed materials (brochures, booklets and fact sheets) to inform separating and divorcing parents, the general public and family law professionals about the guidelines.  The material, some of it published by the Department of Justice Canada and some by respective provinces or territories, was placed in court facilities, family service agencies, government offices, law offices, community agencies and other locations.  Further, notices placed in newspapers and other print media or broadcast on radio directed interested people to telephone numbers and other sources for information and to obtain these materials.  Quebec and Saskatchewan also mailed notices and brochures directly to all maintenance enforcement program clients, while Ontario mailed information to those enforcement clients receiving social assistance.

Self-help Variation Kits.  Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories produced and distributed self-help kits that were designed to help parents seeking a variation of an existing child support order.

Telephone Inquiry Lines.  Many provinces and territories and the federal government established telephone information lines to provide affected parents with direct and ready access to general information and answers to specific questions.  For example, Saskatchewan operated a toll-free line that provided general information about the guidelines and directed callers to services such as the lawyer referral line, education sessions and self-help kits.  The other jurisdictions that allocated federal funding for the maintenance of telephone information lines were Alberta, Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.  Many provinces and territories maintained their telephone information services, but decreased the resources devoted to them as demand fell.

Web Sites.  A number of provinces and territories maintain Web sites where people can obtain general information about guidelines, forms, reports, legislation and other information.  British Columbia, Quebec and the Northwest Territories used federal resources to help pay for the design and launch of their Internet information service.

Videos.  Several jurisdictions produced videos to augment their public awareness campaigns.  For example, in 1997 Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General produced a 55‑minute, broadcast‑quality video on court processes and alternative dispute resolution in both child support and custody and access cases.  The video, entitled Separate Ways, is accompanied by a booklet and brochure.  The package was designed as a self-study tool and an aid in public information presentations made by family law professionals.  The production is now available in seven languages other than English and French, and sign language and open-captioned French and English versions have also been released.

Information sessions.  Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Newfoundland used public meetings as vehicles for disseminating information to the general public or specific groups.  Saskatchewan ran a series of eight sessions around the province to help get information to community groups and services whose clients included separated and divorced parents, while Ontario and New Brunswick developed programs for public information sessions that were delivered by members of the family law bar.  In Newfoundland, the provincial public legal information organization, in cooperation with the provincial Department of Justice, organized a series of public presentations.

Partnerships With Public Legal Education and Information (PLEI) Organizations.  Newfoundland was not the only jurisdiction to develop and deliver public information services in collaboration with a PLEI organization.  Yukon, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia also relied on PLEI groups to develop and deliver products and services as part of their communication and public information strategies.

Several provincial and territorial maintenance enforcement programs have allocated federal funding to support communications and public information activities designed to increase general knowledge about their activities and improve levels of client satisfaction.  In addition to producing print material and maintaining Web sites and interactive telephone services, the programs have employed some more proactive strategies.

Alberta.  The program has assigned staff to prepare individualized responses to correspondence directed to the program or members of the Legislative Assembly.

Quebec.  Revenue Québec’s communications and education campaign used presentations at workshops, conferences and similar events to deliver information to lawyers, the judiciary, notaries, mediators, counsellors, community organizations and the general public.  In the course of carrying out the campaign, staff prepared inventories of concerned professional and community organizations in each judicial region of the province.

Saskatchewan.  In 1997-1998, the Maintenance Enforcement Office delivered two-hour information sessions in eight centres, followed by opportunities for clients to meet privately with a maintenance enforcement officer.  In the individual sessions, which proved very successful, the officers dealt with specific cases as well as general issues.  The group and individual sessions were advertised in newspapers and cheque mail-outs.

Ontario.  In 2000-2001, the Family Responsibility Office improved its outreach and client information services.  Among other things, it reviewed all its print and electronic materials to ensure they were written in plain language, prepared letters, forms and public information materials in eight languages.  The agency planned public information and outreach sessions similar to the series offered in Saskatchewan.

Nova Scotia.  In 1998-1999, the province produced a video describing three aspects of the Maintenance Enforcement Program:  enrolment, payment processing and enforcement.  The video was distributed to courts, transition houses, non-custodial parents’ groups, professional associations, public legal education information sources and others.

Northwest Territories.  In 2000-2001, the territorial program planned to develop public awareness activities that would reinforce positive behaviour and serve as incentives to parents who have been “good payors.”

British Columbia.  In addition to its other activities, the province’s enforcement program produced a style guide, developed principles and business rules for communications and trained staff in their use.

Training

All of the provinces and territories have designed and delivered training on child support guidelines and related matters for court and departmental staff, judges, family lawyers and others involved in the delivery of family law services.  British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Yukon each developed training projects or strategies that were supported by federal resources.  British Columbia, for example, held a series of two-day, team-led workshops covering the guidelines, their application and the resulting operational changes.  Nova Scotia, on the other hand, adopted a combination of direct and train-the-trainer approaches for court, maintenance enforcement, social services and public legal information staff.  Training opportunities for family lawyers were often organized by continuing legal education groups and bar associations with substantive and funding assistance from the federal and provincial governments.  In addition to general training and orientation, a variety of specialized training events were organized.  The Atlantic provinces, for example, jointly sponsored a symposium on the guidelines for lawyers, judges, mediators and accountants in September 1999.

Earlier training (1997-1999) focussed on the Divorce Act reforms and tax changes, but more recent efforts have tended to concentrate on training for court and departmental staff in relation to court rules changes, provincial legislative reforms and information system enhancements.  There are, however, ongoing efforts to support other professionals.  For example, the Yukon Department of Justice issues periodic information bulletins for family law professionals and service providers about new procedures and developments, as well as delivering training to its Court Services staff.

Table of Contents | Appendices