In Quebec, a single family’s legal issue can send them before multiple courts. A case involving domestic violence might begin in criminal court, shift to youth court for concerns about a child’s safety, and then move to Superior Court for child support or parenting time matters. This fractured approach not only delays resolution to these problems, it also places enormous emotional and financial strain on the families involved.
Quebec’s proposal to create a Unified Family Tribunal, introduced under Bill 91, an Act Establishing a Unified Family Tribunal Within the Court of Quebec, is being presented as the province’s bold next step in reforming family law. The goal is to reduce delays, simplify proceedings, and centralize most family-related legal issues under one court. But for many legal professionals, the promise of a truly unified system does not hold up under scrutiny.
The Tribunal would be a part of the Court of Quebec and is expected to take on cases involving parenting time and child support in situations involving civil unions, parental unions, and surrogacy. But it stops short of handling divorce or the division of family property — both of which fall under federal jurisdiction and therefore must remain in Superior Court. The result is a fragmented system where married couples will be forced to navigate the Superior Court system while the issues of families arising from civil unions, parental unions or surrogacy will be treated before the Court of Quebec.
Another one of the Bill’s most contested elements is its mandatory mediation. Parents will be required to attend mediation sessions with a family mediator, and if no agreement is reached, judicial conciliation with a judge follows. If no resolution is reached, then a same-day summary hearing is held before the same judge. While this is pitched as a fast-track to resolution, many in the legal community argue it’s both unrealistic and potentially harmful, especially in cases involving a history of family or sexual violence. Even though exemptions to mediation exist, the burden remains on the victim to prove why mediation isn’t appropriate in their situation, which could discourage some from opting out even when they should.
Logistical concerns are also hard to ignore. Quebec’s network of accredited family mediators is already too small to handle the current demand, especially in remote regions, so it is unclear how the system would be able to meet the new demands Bill 91 would impose.
The Bill also proposes bringing youth protection cases under the same tribunal. While that might sound efficient in theory, it’s raised concerns in practice. Youth protection follows a different legal framework, with different priorities, and lawyers worry that collapsing the two systems together could lead to confusion, inconsistency, and overburdened judges making decisions outside their usual scope.
Ultimately, Bill 91 aims to facilitate a streamlined, more accessible family justice system. However, it is argued that the Bill does not deliver on that promise. Instead, it risks creating a two-tiered system where married couples access one set of judges and services, while those in civil or parental unions navigate another.
While the idea of a unified family court may seem beneficial in theory, the version created by Bill 91 has some unresolved questions and to fully deliver on its promise just yet.
