CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: Lorne MacLean, KC, Fraser MacLean, Sophie Bartholomew and Rana Yavari, MacLean Law
However, where the judgment originates from the United Kingdom, Australia, or from the US states of Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Colorado, or Idaho, the order may be registered directly under the Court Order Enforcement Act. 2.8 Media Access and Transparency in Financial Proceedings Across Canada, family court proceedings are gov ‑ erned by the open court principle, which is constitu ‑ tionally protected under Section 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of expres ‑ sion and freedom of the press). As a general rule, this means that: • court proceedings are presumptively open to the public and the media; and • the media may attend hearings and report on what occurs in court, including financial aspects of fam ‑ ily law matters (such as property division, support, and income disclosure). There is no blanket prohibition on media attendance or reporting in family law cases anywhere in Canada. However, the open court principle is not absolute. Courts in every jurisdiction retain discretion – under common law, federal legislation, and applicable pro ‑ vincial or territorial rules – to limit access or reporting when justified. Canadian courts may restrict public or media access to family proceedings, or narrow what may be report ‑ ed, where such limits are necessary and proportionate to protect competing interests, including: • the proper administration of justice; • the best interests of children (which receive signifi ‑ cant weight in family matters); • the safety or security of a party or child (including concerns related to family violence); and • highly sensitive personal or financial information, though courts generally require a high threshold before restricting openness on this basis alone. Depending on the circumstances, courts may order: • publication bans (full or partial);
• anonymisation of parties or children (eg, using initials or pseudonyms); • sealing of court files or specific documents; • restricted access to hearings or court records; or • limits on the scope of media reporting. Parties may request anonymisation or other restric ‑ tions on openness in family proceedings across Can ‑ ada, based on the test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada for discretionary limits on court openness. Such relief is typically sought by: • bringing a formal application or motion under the applicable court rules; and • filing supporting affidavit evidence demonstrating that: (a) the order is necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important interest; (b) reasonable alternative measures cannot ad ‑ equately address that risk; and (c) the salutary effects of the order outweigh its negative impact on the open court principle. In certain situations, courts may also act on their own initiative – without a formal application – to impose anonymisation, publication bans, or other protective measures. This occurs most often in child‑related mat ‑ ters or when evidence before the court raises immedi ‑ ate safety or privacy concerns during a hearing. 2.9 ADR in Financial Matters Canadian courts encourage the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in resolving financial dis ‑ putes in family law matters. Pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Federal Divorce Act, parties have a statutory duty to try to resolve property division issues through family dispute resolution processes – such as media ‑ tion – unless doing so would be inappropriate. Courts retain discretion to waive ADR requirements in situ ‑ ations involving family violence, power imbalances, or urgency. Lawyers likewise have a statutory duty to encourage ADR and inform clients about available dispute resolution options. Common ADR mechanisms include the following. • Mediation – a neutral mediator helps parties reach a voluntary agreement. Mediation is widely used
74 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook