This morning's Toronto Star has an article on the advent of sharia law arbitrations in family matters in Ontario.    What I understand the process to be about is the interpretation of marriage contracts by an arbitrator before going to court. The article raises the valid concern that new immigrants will not appreciate or have the power in the community to reject the voluntary process or appeal from it when the rulings are unconstitutional.  

Sadly the article does not explain how the general family law of Ontario touches upon this separate arbitration process or that the vast majority of people do not have marriage contracts, though this might not be the case in the Muslim community.  As a result, it raises concern without pointing out the ease of avoiding sharia law where there were real legal concerns about the contract upon which the arbitration was set.

Marriage contracts are legal for any part of the community and can indicate that arbitration of the contract must occur under special rules. This is the same for the Catholic community, the Jewish community or the aboriginal community or anyone else. I can pick that me and my spouse will determine the issues in our marriage contract under Scots law, Japanese law or the rules from the back of the Monolopy box top. It's just a set of rules. The Family Law Act, however, at section 56.1 sets out provisions for the avoidance of marriage contracts in certain situations where there is unfairness or topics which are barred from inclusion in such contracts such as custody or child support. Section 58 requires that foreign marriage contracts be entered into in accordance with the law of Ontario so that unconscionability and lack of independant legal advice would be arguments to nullify them and that argument would be properly brought before a family court judge directly not the arbitrator. If, however, the contract is valid, was entered into by consenting parties who were properly informed and advised, including a clause that stated that the arbitration under sharia law was agreed (or Catholic or Scots), then the arbitrator would have proper jurisdiction. But only then.    It also did not mention that issues between the spouses not set out in the contract would not be subject to the arbitration.

It is too bad the Star did not seek to include this sort of information. Persons who are affected directly might have gotten a heads up to the protections offered under the law.