On June 28, 1999 the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that a father’s freedom of religion was violated when his access to his children was limited because he had become a Jehovah’s Witness. When he and his wife were divorced in 1984, Paul Hockey of Exeter was permitted to see his twin 5-year-old daughters every second weekend. In 1988, her former husband had become a Jehovah’s Witness, however, Mrs. Hockey asked that he not be allowed to have the girls on Sundays. Judge Coulter Osborne agreed with her that it was not in the best interests of the children to expose them to conflicting religious practices. (By this time Mrs. Hockey had converted to Roman Catholicism.)
In their decision, three Divisional Court judges said that the religious rights of both parents must be respected, and that there was no evidence that exposure to two religions would harm the children. They also criticized Mrs. Hockey’s lawyer, Michael Lerner, for writing a letter to Mr. Hockey saying that access was being halted on religious grounds. “Such an attack based on religious bias goes far beyond the bounds of propriety and far beyond the duty of counsel…,” they said.
Others also thought the decision very disturbing: it places the interest of a parent who does not have custody above the interest of the children, they say. As Carole Curtis, a family law practitioner, observed, “It is hard not to think of a 5-year-old as being confused about different religions in different parents’ homes.”
On June 29, Miss Curtis was protesting another child access decision. Ontario Attorney-General Ian Scott introduced Bill 124, which provided quick court hearings for non-custodial parents denied access to their children. Scott defended it as a children’s bill. Carole Curtis, Susan Crean, and other representatives of the Family Law Reform Coalition declared that the new law was not in the best interests of children at all and that it made “women and children once more chattels of men.” They pointed out that the law was particularly dangerous in cases where the father has a history of violence or abuse; he can get a court hearing within ten days, at the hearing oral testimony is acceptable instead of affidavits. Ordering a trial within ten days gives too little time to get witnesses to speak on behalf of the child and the mother, they stated. Meanwhile, the Quebec government passed a bill which the Gazette called a “paternalistic insult” to women. The bill assumes that women are incapable of guiding their own destiny and encourages them to think that they can live at their husband’s expense, the paper claimed.
The legislation forces a 50-50 split of assets on divorce – houses, household furniture and appliances, all benefits from pension plans and RRSPs –, but not of business assets, as happens in Ontario. Couples can opt out of the legislation by mutual agreement.
Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, Quebec Status of Women Minister, said that the fundamental goal of the bill was to protect spouses, most often women, who accumulate no assets during marriage and end up impoverished after divorce.
