Bill C-252 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 4, 2006
- Debated in principleOct. 17, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 21, 2007
- Passed the second chamberMay 28, 2007
- Became lawMay 31, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Consiglio Di NinoSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Rick Casson6 interventions in debateHe introduced the bill and spoke in favor of granting access to terminally ill parents.
- Carole Freeman2 interventions in debateShe describes the bill's purpose positively without objections.
- Lynne Yelich2 interventions in debateShe explicitly states she speaks in support of the bill.
- Wilbert J. KeonSenate · SenatorThe bill recognizes the need for compassion so a dying parent can see a child one last time and will help expedite court access without harming children.
- Marilyn Trenholme CounsellSenate · SenatorThe bill requires documented material change in the non-custodial parent's condition and preserves the best-interests-of-the-child test.
- Bev ShipleyCommends the sponsor's ongoing work on child protection and presents the bill as addressing divorce impacts on families.
- Betty HintonShe explicitly states she speaks in support of the bill.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass. · 2007-03-21 · Passed
How it changed on the way
84% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (359 words introduced, 288 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent narrowed
The introduced bill added a new subsection requiring courts to ensure access for a terminally ill or critically ill spouse when making any order under section 16. The final law instead inserted a subsection (5.1) that treats such a condition as a change of circumstances for former spouses and directs variation orders in the child's best interests.
- Replaced new subsection (11) on initial orders with subsection (5.1) on variation orders.
Before: “(11) Subject to subsection (8), in making an order under this section, the court shall ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child of the marriage.”
After: “(5.1) For the purposes of subsection (5), a former spouse's terminal illness or critical condition shall be considered a change of circumstances of the child of the marriage, and the court shall make a variation order in respect of access that is in the best interests of the child.”
- Changed reference from spouse to former spouse and removed the subsection (8) limit.
Before: “a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition”
After: “a former spouse's terminal illness or critical condition”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard
The text relies on undefined medical conditions and the open-ended 'best interests of the child' test to trigger a mandatory variation order. No definitions, numeric thresholds or objective criteria are supplied to fix the scope of the new subsection.
Open to argument
“terminal illness or critical condition”
Neither phrase is defined, leaving courts to decide what degree of illness qualifies without any statutory standard.“in the best interests of the child”
This classic subjective formula invites case-by-case argument rather than supplying an objective test.“shall be considered a change of circumstances of the child of the marriage”
The phrase imports an undefined concept from the parent Act and applies it automatically once the vague medical condition is found.
Discretion. All interpretive power over the triggering conditions and the content of any access order is left to individual judges with no regulatory or ministerial narrowing.
Challenging the law itself. The undefined terms and mandatory 'best interests' direction are open to a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. The provision does not create an offence; it directs courts to issue orders, so disputes arise only inside family proceedings rather than through enforcement against individuals.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.