An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

How it changed on the way

33% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (63,448 words introduced, 48,949 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill retained its main goals of replacing custody terms with parenting language, adding best-interests criteria, and creating a relocation framework, but added many new procedural details and duties. Jurisdiction timelines shifted from 30 to 40 days, old custody definitions were dropped, and fresh sections on notices, parenting time, and family violence were inserted.

• Changed the time limit for discontinuing parallel proceedings from 30 days to 40 days and gave the Federal Court a new role in deciding jurisdiction.

  Before: “discontinued within thirty days after it was commenced, the court in which a divorce proceeding was commenced first has exclusive jurisdiction”

  After: “neither proceeding is discontinued within 40 days after it was commenced, the Federal Court shall, on application by either or both spouses, determine which court retains jurisdiction”

• Added a full set of relocation notice rules requiring 60 days' notice and specific content.

  After: “A person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of a child of the marriage and who intends to undertake a relocation shall notify, at least 60 days before the expected date of the proposed relocation”

• Removed the original definitions of custody, access and corollary relief proceeding.

  Before: “custody includes care, upbringing and any other incident of custody; ( garde ) custody order means an order made under subsection 16(1); ( ordonnance de garde ) corollary relief proceeding means a proceeding in a court in which either or both former spouses seek a child support order, a spousal support order or a custody order;”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy

The bill supplies many defined terms but repeatedly relies on subjective phrases such as 'appropriate', 'in the opinion of the court' and 'best interests of the child'. These standards, plus broad definitions of family violence and relocation, leave wide room for argument over coverage.

Open to argument

• “unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so”

  This subjective exception appears in multiple duties and allows courts or advisers to decide case-by-case whether obligations apply.

• “in the opinion of the court, it is not in the best interests of the child to do so”

  The best-interests test is undefined and invites prolonged litigation over what factors count.

• “that is likely to have a significant impact on the child’s relationship”

  The 'likely' and 'significant' thresholds are open-ended and lack objective metrics.

• “any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour”

  The expansive, non-exhaustive definition of family violence uses vague behavioural standards that can be contested indefinitely.

Clear-cut

• “the notice shall be given at least 60 days before the change in place of residence”

  A fixed number supplies a clear, objective deadline.

• “provincial child support service means any service, agency or body designated in an agreement with a province under subsection 25.01(1) or 25.1(1)”

  The term is tied directly to a specific statutory mechanism.

Discretion. Courts receive broad discretion to decide what is 'appropriate', to modify parenting plans, to dispense with notice requirements, and to weigh undefined best-interests factors, while regulations may prescribe forms and additional information.

Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of subjective standards such as 'appropriate' and 'best interests' without limiting criteria engages section 7 liberty and security interests and supports a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching duties tied to family violence, relocation or parenting orders can readily dispute whether the conduct met the open-ended thresholds of 'likely', 'significant', 'pattern of coercive behaviour' or 'not appropriate'.

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.