Replies

" When I say that decisions cannot contravene with Canadian law, that means that they can't break the law."

I may be wrong about this, but courts have a huge amount of leeway regarding child custody and property decisions. At least they do in the United States. If a court gives the children to the father, it's a done deal. The court has not broken the law, even if the mom said she was getting the daylights beat out of her on a regular basis (typical Muslim family, I might add). So the court hasn't broken any law, but the mom is screwed. The same is true for property, at least in the US. And forget about appeals - as, would have to enter the Canadian court system, and be exiled (or worse) for life.

The problem isn't whether the Sharia court violates Canadian law, it's that the court (probably) has a huge degree of discretion in following it.

The court has not broken the law, even if the mom said she was getting the daylights beat out of her on a regular basis

There's also a public policy provision. Giving children to an abusive father violates public policy in both Canada and the US.

Judges dealing with custody issues can supercede any private decisions by the parties.

The problem isn't whether the Sharia court violates Canadian law, it's that the court (probably) has a huge degree of discretion in following it.

There are no Sharia courts. All you have are private arbitrators whose decisions are binding on no one but the parties who voluntarily bring their case to the arbitrator.

I don't think people are getting Modernman's point. Sharia 'law' is not being given the force of law. Sharia is only being accepted as a set of guiding principles for the 'arbitration' of civil cases, notably divorce but also some contract or tort cases.

Whatever the outcome of Shari arbitration the agreements cannot supercede or nullify existing precedent under Canadian Law. Any agreement must be reviewed by a judge before it takes force in order to ensure that neither party has been coerced and that the agreement doesn't violate sections of the Charter of Rights.

In family law cases, for instance, if a father sued for exclusive child custody on the grounds that he was was better able financially, to provide for the children and at the same time refused to pay alimony or child support to his exwife, he would lose the case.

In these cases a family court judge, being the final arbiter, would almost certainly rule that the husbands conduct was malicious and unfair.

Although it is completely consistent with Sharia Law to award child custody to the father regardless of the financial status of the mother, this aspect of Sharia is inconsistent with Canadian family law and no judge would accede to it.

Also, the proposal to allow use of Sharia Law in civil arbitration does not apply to criminal charges under the Criminal Code of Canada, for reasons which should be obvious to everyone.