Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family
Permanent URI for this collection
The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family was established on 1 February 1987. The objects of the Institute are to undertake and advance interdisciplinary research, education, and publication on issues related to law and the family; to promote evidence-based reform of the law and legal processes; and, to improve access to justice in family law matters.
The Institute is an independent organization affiliated with the University of Calgary, and is managed by a board of directors made up of prominent judges and family law lawyers, and leading scholars in law, social work, psychology and sociology, from across Canada. The Institute has been incorporated as a registered charity since 1988.
Browse
Browsing Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family by Subject "family law"
Now showing 1 - 17 of 17
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Access to Legal Services in Women's Shelters(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2015-12-01) Wright, A.C.; Bertrand, L.D.This study examines access to legal services among clients of three Calgary-area domestic violence shelters. The study samples the views of staff and clients at three domestic violence shelters with the goals of improving understanding of clients' legal service needs, understanding the challenges clients attempting to access legal services encounter and making recommendations for improvement. The authors conclude that clients' service needs are complex and often involve legal problems, yet shelters face specific organizational barriers to coordinating legal services. The authors recommend that a further analysis be undertaken to examine the legal access patterns of women experiencing domestic violence, to assess the prevalence of the barriers identified in the study and to determine whether further barriers are present in other shelters.Item Restricted Children's Participation in Justice Processes: Finding the Best Ways Forward, Results from the Survey of Symposium Participants(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2017-12-01) Paetsch, J.J.; Bertrand, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.Children's Participation in Justice Processes: Finding the Best Ways Forward was a two-day national symposium that brought together a multidisciplinary spectrum of leading stakeholders to share information and dialogue about how the voices of children and youth are heard, how their interests are protected and how their evidence is received in justice processes. The symposium, which was held in Calgary in September 2017, was organized by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family and the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, and gave the Institute a unique opportunity to survey an informed and involved pool of participants regarding their perceptions and experiences with children's participation in justice processes. This report presents the final results of our survey of symposium participants. The findings from the results are discussed, and recommendations are made for moving forward.Item Restricted Comparing the Views of Judges and Lawyers Practicing in Alberta and in the Rest of Canada on Selected Issues in Family Law: Parenting, Self-represented Litigants and Mediation(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2016-04-01) Bertrand, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.This report examines the results of our survey of attendees of the National Family Law Program 2014, and compares the views of Alberta respondents with those from the rest of Canada on a number of issues, including parenting after separation, self-represented litigants and their access to justice, and mediation. The report notes some striking differences between the views and experiences of Alberta practitioners and those from elsewhere in Canada. Alberta practitioners are more likely to: have cases resulting in shared custody or shared parenting; support the amendment of the Divorce Act to use terms such as parenting responsibilities and parenting time; have cases involving self-represented litigants; support mandatory information programs for self-represented litigants; and, support the use of paralegals to improve access to justice for self-represented litigants.Item Open Access The Development of Parenting Coordination and an Examination of Policies and Practices in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2017-12-01) Bertrand, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.This paper reviews the development of parenting coordination in the United States and its adoption in Canada, as well as the findings of the research available to date on parenting coordination, its efficacy in resolving parenting disputes, its efficacy in steering such disputes out of court and its impact on parental conflict. It discusses the practice of parenting coordination in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, compares processes and training standards in those provinces, and makes recommendations for the practice of parenting coordination in Alberta, and in Canada generally.Item Metadata only Developmental Pathways Towards Crime Prevention: Early Intervention Models(2010) Boyes, M.C.; Hornick, J.P.; Ogden, N.Item Open Access An Evaluation of the Cost of Family Law Disputes: Measuring the Cost Implication of Various Dispute Resolution Methods(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2017-12-01) Boyd, J.-P. E.; Paetsch, J.J.; Bertrand, L.D.This study describes the results of a survey of family law lawyers and their views of the use of collaborative processes, mediation, arbitration and litigation in family law disputes. The study provides valuable insights into the costs of these processes, how long cases take to resolve, and lawyers' perceptions of their efficacy. It suggests that most lawyers are using, and prefer to use, dispute resolution processes other than litigation to resolve family law disputes. Four-fifths of respondents use mediation, almost two-thirds use collaboration, and almost one-third use arbitration. Moreover, almost all lawyers surveyed agree that people should attempt to resolve their dispute through another process before litigating, and almost three-quarters agree that, except in urgent circumstances, people should be required to attempt to resolve their dispute through another process before litigating. Three-quarters of lawyers also agreed that litigation should only be used as a last resort, when other dispute resolution processes have failed. In light of today's straitened budgetary resources, the findings from this study provide information that is useful for policymakers and program developers in identifying best practices in cost-effective dispute resolution methods.Item Open Access Exercice du droit de la famille au Canada : Résultats d’un sondage mené auprès des participants au Colloque national sur le droit de la famille de 2016(Ministère de la Justice, 2016-10-01) Bertrand, L.D.; Paetsch, J.J.; Boyd, J.-P. E.; Bala, N.Le Colloque national sur le droit de la famille (CNDF), événement biennal de premier plan d’une durée de quatre jours organisé par la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada, est la principale tribune nationale des juristes spécialistes du droit de la famille. Il permet aux juristes de se réunir pour en savoir plus sur les nouveautés et les enjeux liés au droit de la famille, et d’en discuter. Dans le passé, le Colloque a offert à Justice Canada et à l’Institut canadien de recherche sur le droit et la famille l’occasion unique de recueillir des données sur l’expérience et le volume de travail des avocats en droit de la famille et du système judiciaire. Le CNDF, qui réunit des centaines d’avocats et de juges de l’ensemble du pays, a eu lieu très récemment à St. John’s (Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador), du 11 au 14 juillet 2016. Sachant que Justice Canada et l’Institut souhaitaient sonder les participants au CNDF de 2016, la Fédération a demandé aux deux entités de collaborer afin de maximiser le nombre de réponses tout en réduisant le fardeau des participants. Justice Canada a donc demandé à l’Institut de réaliser un sondage sur les enjeux actuels liés à la pratique du droit de la famille au Canada et d'en analyser les résultats.Item Open Access Findings from the Evaluations of Years 1, 2 and 3 of the Priority Prolific Offender Program(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2013-01-03) Paetsch, J.J.; MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Bertrand, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.These reports describe the findings of the Institute's evaluations of the Priority Prolific Offender Program over three years. The Program is a project of the Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, undertaken in partnership with the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It aims to improve collaboration among police, Crown prosecutors, corrections and social services to increase supervision, timely and meaningful responses to reoffending, as well as services that support the rehabilitation among the small proportion of the offending population who commit the most crimes. The results obtained when examining offenders' behaviour before, during and after the Program were extremely positive and strongly suggestive of the efficacy of the Program in having a positive effect on offenders not only during their time in the Program, but after deselection as well. Across all Program locations, and for both substantive and administrative offences, the number of new convictions among Program participants was substantially lower than in the five years prior to Program.Item Open Access Parenting Assessments and Their Use in Family Law Disputes in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, 2017-07-01) Suceh, Z.; Boyd, J.-P. E.The use of mental health assessments for the purpose of decision-making in parenting disputes has become relatively commonplace in Canadian family law disputes. These assessments, also called “custody and access reports” and “bilateral assessments,” are usually requested when the views and opinions of an independent expert are needed to help separated parents or the court determine the parenting arrangements that are in the best interests of minor children. This paper reviews practice and procedure in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, and examines: the extent to which these assessments are used and relied upon in courtroom decision-making; and, whether there is a relationship between the cost of private assessments and the frequency of their use in these jurisdictions.Item Restricted Pathways and Transitions of Persistent Youth Offenders in Alberta: Final Report(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, 2014-03-01) MacRae-Krisa, L.; Bertrand, L.D.; Paetsch, J.J.; Rinquist, L.This report summarizes the findings of a four-year study of pathways and transitions of persistent youth offenders in Alberta. The overall objectives of the study were to understand the factors that differentiate persistent youth offenders who offend into adulthood from persistent youth offenders who desist, understand these factors in a developmental context, and provide focussed information to develop and improve multi-sectoral prevention and intervention initiatives.Item Open Access Perceptions of Polyamory in Canada(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2017-12-01) Boyd, J.-P. E.This report presents a detailed analysis and discussion of the data collected from a national survey undertaken in the summer of 2016. It examines the sociodemographic attributes and attitudes of people identifying as polyamorous, the composition of polyamorous relationships and perceptions of polyamorous relationships in Canada, with the goal of obtaining a better understanding of the prevalence and nature of polyamory to inform the development of family justice policy and legislation. It is the second Institute report on polyamory, the first of which focused on the application of the law on domestic relations to those involved polyamorous relationships.Item Open Access Polyamorous Relationships and Family Law in Canada(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2017-04-01) Boyd, J.-P. E.This paper provides a discussion of polyamorous relationships, the legal distinction between relationships that are polyamorous and marriages that are bigamous and polygamous, and how polyamorous relationships are and are not accommodated by the domestic relations legislation of Canada's common law provinces. The paper includes an initial analysis of a study by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family on perceptions of polyamory in Canada, the demographics of Canadian polyamorists and their attitudes toward their relationships. The paper concludes with a number of recommendations directed to family law lawyers dealing with polyamorous clients, including the establishment of specialized practice associations to share knowledge and develop expertise on the unique legal needs of polyamorous families.Item Open Access The Practice of Family Law in Canada: Results from a Survey of Participants at the 2016 National Family Law Program(Department of Justice Canada, 2016-01-10) Bertrand, L.D.; Paetsch, J.J.; Boyd, J.-P. E.; Bala, N.This study analyzes the results of a survey of more than 200 lawyers and judges attending the 2016 National Family Law Program, a high-profile, four-day biennial conference organized by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, on current issues in the practice of family law in Canada. Subjects addressed in the study include participants' views of and experiences with: court-attached family justice programs; hearing the views of children; issues in custody and access disputes; issues in disputes about child support and spousal support; family violence; unified family courts; and, the use of limited scope legal services in family law disputes.Item Open Access The Priority Prolific Offender Program: Preliminary Findings from the Final Year of the Process and Outcomes Evaluation(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2017-07-01) Paetsch, J.J.; Bertrand, L.D.; MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.In response to a recommendation from Alberta’s Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force, the Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, in partnership with the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service and RCMP, developed and piloted the Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) in 2008. The objectives of PPOP are to ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and upto-date information on prolific offenders, promote rehabilitation through the provision of appropriate support services, and ensure the consequences of offending and reoffending are meaningful. PPOP contracted the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family in 2012 to begin the first year of a three-year process and outcome evaluation involving multiple methodologies. The report from the first year of the process and outcome evaluation (MacRae-Krisa & Paetsch, 2013) used program data on offenders who had been deselected from the program, a survey of PPOP staff and a survey of PPOP stakeholders to re-examine program processes and, in particular, to provide a profile of the offenders in the program as a foundation for examining outcomes in the proposed second and third years of the evaluation. Following an internal review of the program in 2013, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct the second year of the evaluation, and findings were presented in Bertrand, Paetsch, MacRae-Krisa, & Boyd (2015). That report included a comparison of clients at the program sites in Calgary, Edmonton and the RCMP locations. It also focused on updating the profile of individuals in a retrospective sample who had been PPOP clients and were subsequently deselected, and conducting comparisons across program sites. Further, the report examined these clients’ reoffending behaviour during their time in the program and after leaving it using data obtained from the Justice Online Information Network (JOIN) to determine the longer-term efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour. The results obtained when examining offending behaviour before, during and after the program for clients in the retrospective sample were extremely positive and strongly suggestive of the efficacy of PPOP in having a positive effect on individuals not only during their time in the program, but after deselection as well. Across all program locations, and for both substantive and administrative offences, the number of convictions during the program was substantially lower than in the five years prior to PPOP and, with the exception of substantive offences among EPS program clients, decreased even further or remained the same following deselection. Given the positive findings with regard to reoffending behaviour during offenders’ time in PPOP and after deselection, one of the recommendations made in the second-year outcome evaluation report was to continue the evaluation for one final year to determine whether the reduced offending behaviour is maintained over a longer period. The second-year report also recommended that a final evaluation year should include another wave of staff and stakeholder surveys to examine any changes in knowledge and perceptions of the program over the intervening period. It was also recommended that a final evaluation year should include a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis to examine the social value created by PPOP. In 2016, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct a final year of the evaluation of the program, and the current report presents the findings. It includes comparisons across program locations and provides analyses of program clients in both the retrospective and longitudinal samples. The report also discusses findings from the latest wave of staff and stakeholder surveys, and presents an SROI analysis of the program. The objectives of the report are to: (1) report findings from the retrospective longitudinal sample, including offending behaviour before, during and after the program; (2) report findings from the program entry and program exit forms for the longitudinal sample; (3) examine any differences in offender characteristics and program procedures across program locations; (4) analyze views of program staff and stakeholders, and examine any changes in opinions and knowledge of the program in the three years since the last surveys; (5) examine the social value created by PPOP by conducting a SROI analysis; and (6) make recommendations for the program as it moves forward.Item Open Access The Priority Prolific Offender Program: Preliminary Findings from the Second Year of the Process and Outcomes Evaluation(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2015-01-02) Paetsch, J.J.; Bertrand, L.D.; MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.The Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) joins a growing number of programs in Canada designed to collaboratively address the behaviour of prolific offenders using a combination of monitoring, enforcement, and rehabilitative services. The objectives of Alberta’s program aim to ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information on prolific offenders, promote rehabilitation through the provision of appropriate support services, and ensure the consequences of offending and reoffending are meaningful. PPOP contracted the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family in 2012 to begin the first year of a three-year process and outcome evaluation involving multiple methodologies. The report from the first year of the process and outcome evaluation (MacRae-Krisa & Paetsch, 2013) used program data on offenders who had been de-selected from the program, a survey of PPOP staff and a survey of PPOP stakeholders to re-examine program processes and, in particular, to provide a profile of the offenders in the program as a foundation for examining outcomes in the proposed second and third years of the evaluation. Following an internal review of the program in 2013, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct the second year of the evaluation and it was determined that a comparison of clients at the program sites in Calgary, Edmonton and the RCMP locations would be desirable. The current report focuses on updating the profile of individuals in the retrospective sample who had been PPOP clients and were subsequently de-selected, and conducting comparisons across program sites. An additional 22 clients who were de-selected from the program since the last report have been added to this sample. Further, this report examined these clients’ re-offending behaviour during their time in the program and after leaving it using data obtained from the Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) to determine the longer-term efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour. The purpose of the current report is to discuss the findings of the second year of the evaluation. The objectives of the report are to: (1) report findings from the retrospective data collection; (2) report preliminary findings from the longitudinal data collection; (3) examine any differences in offender characteristics and program procedures across program locations; ix (4) develop a strategy for a cost/benefit analysis of PPOP; and (5) make recommendations for the program as it moves forward.Item Restricted Record of Proceedings: Symposium on Children's Participation in Justice Processes, Calgary, 14, 15 & 16 September 2017(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2014-03-01) Boyd, J.-P. E.This document is the record of proceedings of Children's Participation in Justice Processes: Finding the Best Ways Forward, a two-day national symposium, held in Calgary in September 2017, that brought together a multidisciplinary spectrum of leading stakeholders to share information and dialogue about how the voices of children and youth are heard, how their interests are protected and how their evidence is received in justice processes. The record contains the Program Guide, the PowerPoint slides presented at the conference, workshop scribes' notes and presenters' summaries of outcome, and a digest of the key themes and recommendations emerging from the workshops.Item Restricted Successfully Parenting Apart: A Toolkit(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, 2017-04-01) Boyd, J.-P. E.This toolkit organizes and consolidates online and print resources and offers guidance, information, referrals and resources for resolving parenting challenges post-separation in ways most effective for children. It is intended to increase family law lawyers' awareness of the best available information to better assist parents in transforming their relationship from being a couple to being successful co-parents. As the first point of contact for many separating parents, effective lawyers need to be aware of the best practices and social science on family restructuring, and should be equipped to easily direct parents to quality resources for further guidance and information. The toolkit is available for download in PDF and commercial printing formats.