Family Law Goes To The Dogs
The 1996 Supreme Court Act provides for 95 judges, plus the Chief Justice and an Associate Chief, making 97. It also allows up to another 97 “Supernumerary” judges – who are past age 65 and usually only work part time. In theory, we could have up to 194 judges sitting.
But we don’t. We currently have 100 Supreme Court Justices – of whom 17 are Supernumerary. Judges have a mandatory retirement age of 75. Of our present SCJ’s, 15 are 65 or older – including the Chief Justiceand Associate Chief. Eight of the 100 reach mandatory retirement in the next two years.
Due to the judge shortage, a ten day family trial will be heard about 17 months from when the lawyers book it. Meanwhile, it now takes an average of 35 times the trial length for the decision to be released (some judges average is up to 100 times the trial length). A 10 day trial means 350 days before the judgment comes down. That means it’s an average of 28 months from when we book a trial, until the judgment.
Your Premier David Eby and your Attorney General Niki Sharma are on the case. They have made various amendments to the Family Law Act. They’ve modernized some stuff about gifts between spouses, and what property is excluded from division. Fine.
They’ve also added sections which will require judges and mediators to consider pets as part of the split. Most of the terms seem identical to the considerations for deciding the parenting arrangements for children, including: “the extent to which each spouse cared for the companion animal” and “the willingness and ability of each spouse to care for the basic needs of the companion animal”.
Judges cannot split pet custody. One spouse takes all. Presumably, the pet’s stuff – food dish, leash, terrarium, aquarium, hamster wheel – will go to the winner as well.
Many animal advocates are rejoicing. We are not. “Companion animal” is defined as: “an animal that is kept primarily for the purpose of companionship”. What does “companionship” mean? The FLA doesn’t say. Is a dog a companion? Sure. How about a gerbil? Maybe. What about an iguana, snake, or goldfish? If I say that I love my cobra, and he loves me back, who can prove that isn’t so? Just look how he stares at me all the time. That’s love.
Family judges already decide important issues of who the kids live with and where they go to school, what support one spouse pays another, and how to split the house, pensions, and RRSP’s. Those decisions take years from when the parties set the case for hearing. Now judges will have to deal with whether me feeding Gilbert the Goldfish every day means more than my wife cleaning the tank every month. Pretty soon we will have “experts” giving testimony about the “needs” of supposed “companion animals”. And whenever one side gets an expert, you know the other side will hire an expert to contradict the first one. Imagine cross examination: “As a herpetologist, are you able to comment on whether Baxter the Blood Python presently residing with John is depressed because he misses Jane and the kids?”
Don’t think it will happen? I’ve had spouses argue about who gets a garden hose. Good lawyers will try to rein in their crazy clients. But look at the number of lawyer blogs that are just thrilled with this. It’s one more emotional hot button to waste clients’ money and judges’ time.
Thank you Premier Eby and AG Sharma. You’ve managed to increase the waste of time and money in family law. You’ve managed to make cases take longer to get to trial. The gerbils will thank you.
At Clear Legal, we have been bringing other lawyers to heel since 1990.
