2013 brought about sweeping changes as a result of the replacement of the Family Relations Act with the Family Law Act in March 2013.  The new Act broadened the application of property provisions from married couples to both married and common law couples.  Changes also came to how property is defined and spouse's interests in it.  

The Act also reintroduced the idea of dispute resolution except that the Act makes the alternate court, not dispute resolution.  It is mandatory for parties and lawyers to consider resolution outside of court.  

There is also the term "family violence" which is very broad and considers the impact that it has on children, spouses and the process (whether court proceedings or the formation of an agreement).  

A number of other important parts of the Act make new waves as well.  Conduct orders, fines, penalties and process for ensuring disclosure are expressed in the Act to make it less burdensome to deal with the unwilling, unfair and uncooperative.

There are also the rejuvenated roles of parenting coordinators, counselors, divorce coaches and other role providers which without government funding are beyond the reach of the ordinary "jane" and "joe".  The words of the Act are great, but ultimately will depend on the availability of resources which at this point in time are scarce.

Only 2014 will tell how well the Act will impact family law including the people, the professionals and the children that are directly impacted by it.  This is particularly so given that the Act is still in its infancy.  Our courts are young in interpreting and applying many aspects of the new Act.  Lawyers and parties are in the same developmental stage. 

But as I have always been the view of time and again, it is not so much the game as it is the players (lawyers, judges, professionals, the parties and  government support).  There is not much sense having law when it has no effect; when it is not being applied or used as are its intended purpose and spirit.

Only 2014 will tell.

It is fairly common for both the Courts and lawyers to omit to put their minds to stipulate in the draft of Orders which piece of legislation the Order is made - the Family Relations Act (BC) or the Divorce Act (Canada).  The omission can have implications on the parties as indicated in the BC Court of Appeal's recent decision:

It depends. 

Undue Hardship Claim:  Yes.  If you are obligated to pay child support AND claim that you are unable to pay because of “undue hardship” then YES – you must disclose your current spouse’s income if you are residing together.  If you claim undue hardship (e.g. I cannot afford to pay support because of high debt) then you are required to disclose “household income” which would include your current spouse’s income if s/he resides with you.  Then there is a household to household comparison of incomes.  A claim for undue hardship is a difficult claim to prove successfully.