New figures show Ontario's family court backlog has reached a five-year high, while Legal Aid Ontario reports it turned away more than 12,000 applicants in the last fiscal year due to funding constraints.
Ontario's family court system is under mounting pressure. New data obtained through freedom-of-information requests shows that the average wait time for a contested family hearing in the province has climbed to 22 months — the longest recorded in five years.
At the same time, Legal Aid Ontario has confirmed that it declined more than 12,000 applications for family law certificates in the 2025–26 fiscal year, citing a funding envelope that has not kept pace with inflation or demand.
The Numbers Behind the Crisis
The figures paint a stark picture. In 2019, the average wait for a contested family hearing in Ontario was 14 months. By 2023 it had climbed to 18 months. The 2026 figure of 22 months represents a 57 per cent increase in seven years.
Legal aid eligibility thresholds have not been updated since 2014. A single parent earning more than $1,733 per month — before tax — is ineligible for a certificate, even though that income level falls well below the poverty line in most Ontario cities.
A single parent earning more than $1,733 per month is ineligible for legal aid — an income level below the poverty line in most Ontario cities.
What Advocates Are Calling For
The Canadian Justice Grandma is calling on the Ontario government to immediately raise the legal aid income threshold to reflect current cost-of-living realities, and to commit to a multi-year funding plan that matches the scale of the backlog.
"Families cannot wait 22 months for a hearing while their children's lives are in limbo," said a network spokesperson. "This is not a resource problem — it is a political choice, and it can be reversed."
The Department of Justice has confirmed it will conduct a five-year review of the 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act, including provisions on family violence and the best interests of the child.
The Department of Justice Canada has confirmed it will undertake a formal five-year review of the 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act, with a particular focus on how courts have applied the new family violence provisions and the expanded best-interests-of-the-child framework.
The review, expected to begin in the fall of 2026, will include consultations with legal professionals, family justice advocates, and — for the first time — structured input from families who have navigated the system since the amendments came into force.
What the 2021 Amendments Changed
The 2021 amendments replaced the terms 'custody' and 'access' with 'parenting time' and 'decision-making responsibility', introduced a mandatory consideration of family violence in parenting orders, and added a list of 16 factors courts must weigh when determining the best interests of a child.
Advocates have broadly welcomed the changes but raised concerns about inconsistent application across provinces and a lack of judicial training resources.
For the first time, the review will include structured input from families who have navigated the system since the amendments came into force.
The Canadian Justice Grandma will be submitting a formal brief to the review and is calling on affected families to share their experiences through our story submission platform.
British Columbia has announced a two-year pilot using video hearings and travelling judges to address severe family court delays in communities north of Prince George and on Vancouver Island.
The BC Ministry of Attorney General has announced a two-year pilot programme aimed at reducing family court delays in rural and remote communities, with an initial focus on communities north of Prince George and several communities on Vancouver Island.
The pilot will use a combination of video hearings for procedural matters and a rotating schedule of travelling judges for contested hearings, reducing the need for families to travel hundreds of kilometres to access the court.
The Scale of the Problem
In some northern BC communities, families have waited more than three years for a contested family hearing. The cost of travel, accommodation, and time off work has made meaningful access to justice effectively impossible for many low-income families.
The pilot is being welcomed cautiously by advocates, who note that video hearings can disadvantage self-represented litigants who lack reliable internet access or private space to participate.
In some northern BC communities, families have waited more than three years for a contested family hearing.
The network is calling on the province to pair the pilot with dedicated digital access support — including devices and connectivity — for families who need it.
Quebec has extended its free family mediation programme — previously limited to couples with children — to all separating couples, in a move advocates say could significantly reduce court congestion.
Quebec has announced it will extend its free family mediation programme to all separating couples, regardless of whether they have children together. The programme, previously available only to couples with dependent children, provides up to five free sessions with an accredited family mediator.
The expansion is expected to reduce pressure on the province's family courts by diverting disputes over property division and support to mediation before they reach the litigation stage.
A Model Other Provinces Are Watching
Quebec's mediation model is widely regarded as one of the most accessible in Canada. The province has offered free mediation to couples with children since 1997, and uptake has been consistently high — with approximately 70 per cent of eligible couples using the service.
The Canadian Justice Grandma is calling on other provinces to study the Quebec model and consider similar expansions, noting that mandatory mediation information sessions — already required in some provinces — are a meaningful but insufficient first step.
A new report from the Atlantic Policy Congress highlights that child support enforcement in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland remains inconsistent, with thousands of families receiving partial or no payments.
A new report from the Atlantic Policy Congress has found that child support enforcement across the four Atlantic provinces remains deeply inconsistent, with an estimated 28,000 families receiving partial or no payments in 2025.
The report, which analysed data from provincial maintenance enforcement programmes, found that enforcement capacity varies significantly between provinces — and that cross-provincial enforcement, where a paying parent lives in a different province from the child, remains a particular weak point.
The Human Cost
For the families affected, the consequences are immediate and severe. Child support is often the primary income source for single-parent households. When payments are missed or reduced, families face housing instability, food insecurity, and reduced access to education and extracurricular activities for their children.
An estimated 28,000 families in Atlantic Canada received partial or no child support payments in 2025.
The network is calling for a national enforcement framework that closes the cross-provincial gap and gives maintenance enforcement programmes the tools and resources they need to act quickly when payments are missed.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has clarified the legal threshold required to vary an existing parenting order, resolving a split in appellate court decisions across the country.
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a unanimous decision clarifying the legal threshold a parent must meet to vary an existing parenting order under the Divorce Act. The decision resolves a split between appellate courts in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia that had produced inconsistent outcomes for families across the country.
The court held that a parent seeking to vary a parenting order must demonstrate a material change in circumstances that was not contemplated at the time the original order was made — and that the proposed variation is in the best interests of the child, assessed against the full list of factors set out in the 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act.
Why the Split Mattered
Prior to this decision, courts in different provinces were applying different standards. Some required only that a change in circumstances had occurred; others required that the change be significant and long-lasting. The inconsistency meant that a parent's ability to vary an order depended in part on which province they lived in — a result the Supreme Court described as 'fundamentally incompatible with the national character of the Divorce Act.'
The inconsistency meant that a parent's ability to vary an order depended in part on which province they lived in.
What This Means for Families
The decision provides greater certainty for families navigating parenting order variations. It also reinforces the centrality of the best-interests-of-the-child analysis, making clear that a material change in circumstances is a threshold question — not a sufficient basis on its own to justify a variation.
The Canadian Justice Grandma welcomes the clarity the decision provides, while noting that access to legal advice remains a barrier for many self-represented litigants who must navigate this analysis without professional support.
A coalition of family justice organisations has released a report calling for a national framework to standardise child protection oversight, data collection, and family rights across provincial boundaries.
A coalition of family justice organisations, including the Canadian Justice Grandma, has released a report calling for the federal government to establish a national child protection accountability framework — a set of minimum standards, data-sharing protocols, and family rights that would apply across all provincial child protection systems.
The report, 'Accountability Without Borders,' documents significant variation in how provincial child protection agencies investigate concerns, involve families in decision-making, and provide access to review and appeal processes.
The Core Recommendations
The report makes seven core recommendations, including: mandatory timelines for investigations and case reviews; a national registry of outcomes to enable cross-provincial research; a statutory right for parents to receive written reasons for child protection decisions; and an independent ombudsperson with jurisdiction over all provincial child protection agencies.
A parent's rights when their child is apprehended should not depend on which province they live in.
"A parent's rights when their child is apprehended should not depend on which province they live in," the report states. "The federal government has both the authority and the obligation to set minimum standards that protect families from arbitrary and inconsistent treatment."
A peer-reviewed study from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law has found that self-represented litigants in family court are significantly less likely to achieve outcomes consistent with the best interests of their children, compared to represented parties.
A peer-reviewed study published in the Canadian Journal of Family Law has found that self-represented litigants in family court are significantly less likely to achieve outcomes consistent with the best interests of their children, compared to parties who are represented by counsel.
The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, analysed 1,200 family court decisions across Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia between 2020 and 2025. It found that self-represented parties were 34 per cent less likely to obtain the parenting arrangement they sought, and 41 per cent less likely to receive the child support amount to which they were entitled under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
The Structural Barriers
The researchers identified several structural factors contributing to the disparity: procedural complexity that disadvantages those without legal training; judicial time constraints that limit the court's ability to assist self-represented parties; and a lack of plain-language resources that accurately reflect current law.
Self-represented parties were 34 per cent less likely to obtain the parenting arrangement they sought.
The study recommends mandatory plain-language procedural guides for all family court proceedings, dedicated duty counsel programmes at all family court locations, and judicial training on effectively managing proceedings involving self-represented litigants.
The Canadian Justice Grandma has endorsed the study's recommendations and is calling on provincial attorneys general to implement them as a matter of priority.
A private member's bill introduced in the House of Commons would amend the Divorce Act to create a presumption in favour of grandparent contact where it is in the best interests of the child.
A private member's bill introduced in the House of Commons would amend the Divorce Act to create a rebuttable presumption in favour of grandparent contact where a court finds it to be in the best interests of the child.
Currently, grandparents have no automatic right to contact with their grandchildren under the Divorce Act. They may apply to the court for contact, but there is no presumption in their favour — and the threshold for obtaining an order can be high, particularly where one or both parents oppose contact.
What the Bill Would Change
The bill would require courts to consider grandparent contact as part of the best-interests analysis in all parenting proceedings, and to provide written reasons if they decline to order contact where a grandparent has applied. It would also create a simplified application process for grandparents who are not parties to the underlying divorce proceedings.
Grandparents have no automatic right to contact with their grandchildren under the current Divorce Act.
The Canadian Justice Grandma supports the bill's intent and is calling on all parties to allow it to proceed to committee for study. We are also calling for the bill to be extended to apply in non-divorce family proceedings, where grandparent contact issues most commonly arise.
Ontario has announced the expansion of its dedicated family violence court model to Hamilton, London, and Kingston — bringing specialised judicial resources and wraparound supports to three more communities.
Ontario has announced the expansion of its dedicated family violence court model to Hamilton, London, and Kingston, bringing specialised judicial resources, trained court staff, and wraparound victim supports to three additional communities.
The dedicated court model, which has operated in Toronto and Ottawa since 2019, provides a single-point-of-contact for families where family violence intersects with family law proceedings — reducing the need for families to navigate multiple court processes simultaneously.
Why Dedicated Courts Matter
Research consistently shows that family violence cases handled in dedicated courts result in better outcomes for survivors and children, faster resolution of safety-related issues, and more consistent application of the family violence provisions in the Divorce Act.
The Canadian Justice Grandma welcomes the expansion and is calling on the province to commit to a timeline for extending the model to all Ontario communities with a family court.
A joint statement from Indigenous legal advocates and family justice organisations calls on Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to adopt culturally appropriate family law protocols for Indigenous families navigating the court system.
A joint statement from Indigenous legal advocates and family justice organisations is calling on the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to adopt culturally appropriate family law protocols for Indigenous families navigating the court system.
The statement, signed by more than 40 organisations, calls for the integration of Indigenous legal traditions into family court processes, the appointment of Indigenous family court liaison workers, and mandatory cultural competency training for all family court judges and staff in the three provinces.
The Disproportionate Impact
Indigenous children are dramatically overrepresented in both the child protection and family court systems across the prairie provinces. Advocates argue that this overrepresentation is not a reflection of family breakdown, but of a system that has historically failed to recognise and respect Indigenous family structures, decision-making processes, and community supports.
The overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the system is not a reflection of family breakdown — it is a reflection of systemic failure.
The Canadian Justice Grandma endorses the joint statement and calls on all three provincial governments to begin meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities on the development of culturally appropriate protocols.
New Brunswick has become the first Atlantic province to raise its legal aid income eligibility threshold for family law matters in more than a decade, in a move advocates say will help thousands of low-income families.
New Brunswick has become the first Atlantic province to raise its legal aid income eligibility threshold for family law matters in more than a decade. The new threshold, which came into effect on June 1, 2026, increases the monthly income limit for a single applicant from $1,450 to $1,950 — a 34 per cent increase.
The change is expected to make approximately 4,200 additional New Brunswick residents eligible for legal aid certificates in family law matters each year.
A Step Forward — But Not Enough
Advocates have welcomed the change while noting that even the new threshold remains below the poverty line in most New Brunswick communities. The Canadian Justice Grandma is calling on the province to commit to annual threshold reviews tied to the consumer price index, so that eligibility does not erode again over time.
The network is also calling on Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador to follow New Brunswick's lead and update their own thresholds as a matter of urgency.