English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Bill C-10 (Canada), 1984 is entitled  An Act to Amend the Divorce Act(R.S.C., 1970, c. 10). In reality, however, the fundamental character of some of the changesproposed therein constitutes a major reform of substantive divorce law and provides alimited foundation for radical changes in the adversarial legal process. The concept of “no-fault” divorce that was proposed by the Law Reform Commission ofCanada in its Working Papers and Report on Family Law constitutes the basis of Bill C-10with regard to the freedom to divorce and the judicial determination of the right to andquantum of spousal maintenance. But Bill C-10 provides little by way of a framework for theimplementation of the Law Commission's recommendations for new processes that wouldameliorate the injurious effects of the adversarial legal process. For example, the use ofmediation as an alternative to the litigation of disputed issues is endorsed in clauses 5and 16 of Bill C-10, but these clauses, and particularly clause 5, are badly drafted and areunlikely to foster mediated settlements where either lawyer representing the parties isintent on a battle in open court. Bill C-10 introduces much-needed policy objectives to assist the courts indetermining whether spousal maintenance should be ordered on the dissolution of themarriage. Here again, however, the drafting is less precise than might be consideredappropriate. The “best interests of the child” is declared to be the paramount criterion inapplications for the maintenance, custody, care and upbringing of children, but no specificguidelines are provided with respect to the factors that might be relevant to adetermination of a child's best interests. Joint custody orders and third party orders areexpressly permitted, but not expressly encouraged, by clause 10 of Bill C-10. The jurisdictional requirements of section 5 (1) of the  Divorce Act ,R.S.C. 1970, c. D-8 have been simplified by clause 3 of Bill C-10, which retains only theone year ordinary residence requirement. Corresponding adjustments have been made to section6 of the  Divorce Act , which governs the recognition of foreign divorcedecrees. Bill C-10 (Canada), 1984 thus constitutes a blending of the old and new. Whetherthis blend produces vintage wine or vinegar is a matter of opinion.

Divorce Reform in Canada: New Perspectives; An Analytical Review of Bill C-10 (Canada), 1984