SUBMISSION BY B'NAI BRITH CANADA

I.The Role of B'nai Brith Canada

B'nai Brith Canada has been active in this country, representing the interests of the Jewish community, since 1875.Through its League for Human Rights, B'nai Brith is well recognized as the foremost Jewish human rights advocacy group in Canada.The objectives of the League include the protection of human rights of all Canadians, the development of positive inter-community relations, and the elimination of racial discrimination and antisemitism.

B'nai Brith and its agencies are dedicated to strengthening Canada's multicultural fabric.It has taken an active role in promoting religious and cultural continuity while at the same time working to ensure equality and other human rights through legal and constitutional safeguards.

Given the fact that Jewish religious courts have been operative in family law areas for hundreds of years, B'nai Brith Canada has been asked to comment on the specific instance of sharia based tribunals being recognized under the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, ( S.O. 1991, c. 17), and the concerns that have been raised regarding the possible compromise of the rights of Muslim women and other vulnerable groups.

II.Background

Following the request to allow sharia based tribunals to function under the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, Ms. Marion Boyd was asked by the Premier of Ontario to review the use of private arbitration, including religious-based arbitrations, in Ontario.She was specifically requested to provide advice and recommendations to the Ontario Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues about the use of private arbitration to resolve family and inheritance cases, as well as the impact the use of arbitration might have on people who may be vulnerable, including women, persons with disabilities and the elderly.

B?nai Brith Canada struck a legal subcommittee to respond to the review of the arbitration process in Ontario currently underway.The Chair of the subcommittee is Mr. John T. Syrtash, whose preferred area of practice is family law. (See Appendix D for further details.)He has represented both religious and secular litigants before the Jewish courts in Ontario on family and inheritance matters and has attended to enforcement issues in a family law context before the Ontario Superior Court.

III.Position of B'nai Brith Canada

Statement of Principles

1)It is B?nai Brith Canada?s view that under the Canadian Constitution (Constitutional Act, 1982), Jews, and indeed all faith based or religious groups, are guaranteed the right to contractually operate their own courts of arbitration in family law and other matters, so long as the participants do so voluntarily and with due process and fairness. Specifically, Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, provides that the Charter ?will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians? [emphasis added].This provision determines that Canadian society will be an open and pluralistic society which must accommodate different religious practices.In fact, this principle is further supported by the recent successful appeal brought by the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada as intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, wherein the Court clearly recognized the right of all Canadian residents to exercise their own sincerely held religious beliefs.

2)B'nai Brith supports the integrity of the freedom of choice of any individual, who, for religious reasons, wishes to participate by reason of his or her own conscience in such religious courts and thereby consult his or her own religious traditions, so long as it is done consensually or voluntarily.

3)It is the right of all those residing in Canada to be treated equally, no matter what their religious background, as set out in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.

4)B'nai Brith is firmly committed to a system of alternative dispute forums that recognizes the right of choice for all of Ontario's residents, so long as their basic rights are protected.It is our view that the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, should in no way be altered to affect the rights of Jews or members of other religious groups in this province under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, save and except so far as is necessary to protect the rights of the participants in these religious courts to make their own voluntary decisions to participate.

IV.Addressing Legitimate Concerns

Voluntariness

B'nai Brith Canada is sensitive to the issue many groups have raised regarding the lack of options some women or other vulnerable groups may experience when asked to participate in certain types of family law alternative dispute resolution forums, including religious courts such as variants of sharia law courts.While recognizing that there are many different types of sharia law courts in operation in different jurisdictions, B'nai Brith does have deep concerns whether certain women or other vulnerable groups may be culturally obliged to participate against their will by reason of family, age, lack of education or other cultural pressures.However, Jewish courts, pursuant to applicable arbitration laws, have been successfully in operation in family law areas for hundreds of years, and serve as a model of success, particularly in common law jurisdictions such as Ontario.

Existing Safeguards

We would argue that safeguards are already built into the system at the enforcement level which ensure that the basic rights of all participants are protected.Our recommendations which follow will serve, we submit, to enhance such protections.These specific suggestions as to technical changes will better protect the rights of vulnerable individuals, such as certain women, while still protecting the integrity of the constitutional and Charter provisions designed to protect the religious rights of all Ontario's diverse residents.

It is the firm view of B'nai Brith Canada that the existing principles of private arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991, are sound.Principles of fairness, equality and due process are integral under the Act.So, for example, section 3 of the Act provides that parties cannot exclude from their arbitration agreement the right to be treated equally and fairly as set out section 19 of the Act.Indeed, a court may set aside any award where a litigant was not treated equally and fairly (section 46).Furthermore, the vulnerable are protected under the Act.For example, a party cannot enter into a binding arbitration agreement while under a legal incapacity (sections 46, 48).

Nor will the courts of Ontario tolerate any duress regarding participation.Media reports have raised the concerns of certain groups that the application of sharia law itself, or the application of sharia law by ill-advised religious tribunals, may lead to inconsistent decisions contrary to the rights of certain vulnerable groups, or contrary to the best interests of children, or contrary to a child's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.

The experience in the realm of the Jewish religious courts is that the Superior Court will exercise its parens patriae supervisory jurisdiction, as well as its constitutional jurisdiction, to override any unprincipled position taken by an arbitration panel.The unreported 1996 family law ruling of the Ontario Superior Court of T. v. T. is illustrative. (A copy of the order was provided to Marion Boyd, but names are withheld here to respect the privacy of the litigants.)In that case, the Judge did not hesitate to exercise her parens patriae supervisory authority to intervene and find that a Jewish court, comprised of three Rabbis, had overly delayed a matrimonial dispute regarding child support and access issues to the detriment of the family involved.The Judge had made her own child support and access order on an interim basis in an earlier order, and in the subsequent order discussed here, she transferred the balance of the proceedings to be heard by the Ontario Superior Court.

To the best of our knowledge and research, this is the only known case where a Jewish Arbitration Court was overruled, clearly suggesting that the system usually functions well.Since the T. case, the Council of Orthodox Rabbis have radically changed their procedures on how Rabbis are chosen for their courts so that such procedural delays are no longer countenanced.In any event, this was an isolated incident.The case is nonetheless illustrative of the power of the Superior Court to invoke its parens patriae authority when necessary.There is no evidence to suggest that this will not continue.We believe that the Court will continue to protect the rights of the litigants in the event of any fundamental injustice, especially if any litigant attempts to enforce a religious court order that was obtained unfairly, or where the result clearly interferes with a child's best interests.Frankly, some of the criticisms we have been reading from other interest groups and individuals demonstrate a remarkable lack of respect or knowledge about the sensibilities and maturity of Superior Court Judges in the existing legal system.Many of these groups and writers assume a blind ?rubber stamp? mentality among family law Judges that has no basis in fact.

V.Recommendations for changes

1)Certificate of Independent Legal Advice

A key concern raised by many groups is that vulnerable members of the Muslim community in Canada will be coerced into participation.While voluntary participation is required under the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, the onus now rests on the litigant to raise issues as to voluntariness at the enforcement stage, which can be impractical and indeed expensive to raise.Therefore, it is our recommendation that the Arbitration Act be formally amended to require that all litigants obtain a Certificate of Independent Legal Advice, from a qualified member of the Law Society of Upper Canada in good standing, in the form that will be set out in the regulations of the legislation.The individual will be advised as to the rights he or she is foregoing under the Ontario's family and inheritance laws, and the nature of the alternative legal system will be explained before entering into a "foreign" arbitration process of dispute resolution.

It is further recommended that the Certificate of Independent Legal Advice contain a specific clause making full and frank disclosure of all financial matters mandatory before any religious court, notwithstanding any prior agreement entered into by the spouses under Part IV of the Ontario Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, in compliance with section 56(4) thereof(see paragraph 5 of the recommended Certificate in Appendix A).

The legislation should also provide that prior to any religious court ruling being enforced by the Ontario Superior Court, the litigant will be required to complete and file an Affidavit of Solicitor as Subscribing Witness (Appendix B), to which a copy of the solicitor?s Certificate of Independent Legal Advice will be attached as an exhibit.It would then be within the Court's discretion to either immediately grant the enforcement order, or schedule a full hearing to investigate the circumstances regarding whether or not the litigant's participation in the religious arbitration hearing was truly voluntary.This process will further ensure that it is the free and voluntary decision of a litigant to enter into the arbitration process.

An analogous process now occurs when parties with dependent children apply for a divorce under the Divorce Act.Before the Court will grant a divorce, the parties must satisfy the Court, through affidavit evidence, that provisions for child support in compliance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines under the Divorce Act have been strictly complied with by filing tax returns, Notices of Assessment and pay stubs to prove the litigant's gross yearly income over the past three years.The Ontario Courts are impressed with a supervisory function when consent to a motion for a Court order is filed before it.Judges are often not satisfied with the affidavit evidence provided and demand more particulars.The orders made are not simply "pro forma," particularly when the amount of child support requested is less than the amount in the Guidelines that was supposed to be normally ordered in accordance with the litigant's income - even if the request is being made on consent of both parties.

Similarly, a Judge may well decide to have the parties to an arbitration agreement appear when the proposed Affidavits of Voluntariness are filed, particularly if the affidavit offers too few particulars, or if the decision of the religious court appears to be particularly draconian.

Our suggested version of the certificate is very specific.It tells the Judge that the litigant be fully informed about the nature of the process and the alternative type of law and procedure that will be administered, as well as the benefit of the Ontario laws that the client is foregoing.

Some critics might suggest that a Certificate of Independent Legal Advise is insufficient to protect vulnerable litigants.In reality, lawyers consider these certificates very seriously.They are well aware that their insurance deductibles and professional standing are in question should a vulnerable spousal litigant later attempt to make a claim against the solicitor on the basis that she was not sufficiently apprised of the rights she was foregoing under any particular agreement. This is particularly so in cases of arbitration agreements that could affect rights of property, support, child custody and access.As a result, many solicitors reduce their advice to writing in order to protect their liability positions, or have their clients sign ?waivers? when the clients sign agreements that contravene their advice.

2)Inheritance

In disputes concerning inheritance, Jewish courts convene the litigants and attempt to resolve matters in the same manner as they do with family law disputes - first they attempt to mediate, failing which they arbitrate.

The arbitration agreement usually has the parties, for instance, two squabbling joint executors or beneficiaries, agreeing to receive a ruling from the arbitrators on any outstanding dispute based on Jewish law.The arbitration agreement will further provide that the ruling will be deemed to constitute binding recommendations to the Estate branch of the Superior Court regarding a consent order setting out how the estate in dispute will be distributed.Nonetheless, parties to the arbitration and the Jewish Court itself must recognize that the ultimate authority over estate matters in Ontario is the Estates Branch of the Superior Court of Ontario.The Superior Court, in its wisdom, may theoretically reject the consent order if the Court finds that it does not conform with the Arbitration Act or any other principle of natural justice.For instance, if the decision affected third parties that were under a disability, or minors who were not represented in the arbitration, the Court would clearly not grant the enforcement order.Moreover, if a dependent spouse, or a dependent child/grandchild under the Dependent Relief section of the Succession Law Reform Act was not a party to such an arbitration, and if they had a claim that was not considered properly, or at all, in the arbitration, then the Court would undoubtedly protect their rights in the face of such an arbitration decision.Similarly, if any creditors are adversely affected by such recommendations, the Court will not make any enforcement decisions that adversely affect third parties.

Once again, B?nai Brith recommends that before any litigants be permitted to allow clerical arbitrators to determine inheritance disputes, they should be required to obtain a Certificate of Independent Legal Advice.However, in matters of arbitrations involving inheritance, the Certificate should further provide that the litigant has been advised of a new legislatively proscribed duty to inform the religious courts in writing of the following before the commencement of any such arbitration (see paragraph 7 of recommended Certificate in Appendix A):

(a)any Last Will and Testament of the Deceased and probate thereof, together with any known copies of any Powers of Attorney granted to Third Parties, (if known),

(b)any holograph Will or other document purporting to represent a testamentary instrument,

(c)the full names, full addresses and phone numbers (if available) of any spouse or children of the deceased, (if any),

(d)the full names, full addresses and phone numbers (if available) of any third parties that may be under a mental and/or physical disability that may have been financially dependent on the deceased,

(e)the full names, full addresses and phone numbers of any known secured or unsecured creditors of the deceased, after having obtained an execution search and Bankruptcy search, (if any),

(f)a list of the deceased?s known assets (if any), and

(g)the list of all next of kin.

In this manner, if the litigant decides to take the dispute to religious arbitration, the religious court will be able to properly consider the rights and concerns of such third parties.If not, then the Superior Court ultimately has the supervisory authority to protect such third parties.

3)Credentials of Arbitrators

Concern has also been raised in the context of the sharia law debate as to the training of who will sit as arbitrators on such tribunals.

Rarely has a complaint been made about the quality of the decision-making in the Beis Din system (Jewish religious court system) successfully operating in Ontario.Indeed, the very concept of mediation/arbitration, as it is currently practiced in family law in Ontario, finds its historical roots in the procedures of the Jewish Courts themselves.What is unique about arbitration in family law in the Jewish courts is that before the arbitration phase, the Rabbis attempt to mediate the dispute, exempting the process under section 35 of the Arbitration Act in writing, which section permits an arbitrator also to act as mediator.Only if the mediation fails do they then become arbitrators.Before even the mediation phase, they first attempt marriage counseling.

Rabbis sitting as arbitrators on the Jewish religious courts have been diligently practicing and teaching this method for decades, transmitted through their formal learning through the ages and the Talmud.While their actual backgrounds and formal training varies, the rabbis are highly educated in Jewish law and its application in the Canadian context.The experience of the Toronto Beis Din (Jewish Rabbinical Court) in this regard, and the training and qualifications of the rabbis sitting as arbitrators, are outlined in the letter of Rabbi ReuvenTradburks, Secretary of the Toronto Beis Din and special consultant to B?nai Brith Canada?s subcommittee, attached as Appendix C to this submission.

In this area as well, theOntarioArbitration Act already contains basic safeguards.For instance, the Act sets out that arbitrators must act independently and establishes procedures for their removal due to misconduct. 

It is our view that the credentials of the acting arbitrators are best assured by a system of self-governance by each religious/cultural group and not through any state-imposed standardized training or government charter-granting authority.As noted above, any dangers inherent in the arbitration process should be brought to the individual litigant's attention by the lawyer offering the independent advice.Our recommended Certificate of Independent Legal Advice has developed a clause which addresses this concern (see paragragh 6 of the recommended Certificate in Appendix A).Going beyond that to impose any standard level of training may indeed interfere with Charter-protected religious rights.It also would create a state-sponsored paternalistic and legislated attitude towards all Ontarians of faith who have a right to choose, after they have been given independent legal advice by the lawyer of their choice.

It is the procedure surrounding the making of that choice which should be legislated and supervised by the Court, not the choice itself.Once a member of a vulnerable group is privately told by a lawyer what rights they may be foregoing, many will realize that the sharia or other systems are not appropriate for their needs. Under our recommendations, a lawyer will be obliged to inform litigants as to the benefits of staying in the Ontario Courts, as opposed to opting for proceeding by way of religious arbitration. In each such interview, the party should be advised as to the education and background of the decision-maker in each system that will be dealing with their dispute. As a result, many will stay in the Ontario Court system.Yet, many women (and men), including highly educated Ontarians, will still opt to have their disputes arbitrated privately.

B'nai Brith recommends that in today?s legal system, governed by the Charter and key decisions such as Syndicat (S.C.C.), supra, the Ontario government should not be interfering with a litigant's decision to proceed before a religious court of his or her choosing after such a sober interview. 

4)Developing Written Reasons for Decisions

It is our recommendation that all arbitrators, whether sitting as religious court panels or otherwise, be required to produce written decisions with reasons in family law and inheritance cases.Such a requirement will promote transparency of the arbitration process in Ontario for the litigants and will also make it easier to review decisions by the Superior Court, if necessary, at the enforcement or appellate level.Without a requirement for written reasons, there may be a suspicion of unilateral decision-making, unfairness, lack of clarity as to the result, or an inability to enforce the decision itself at the Superior Court level.

5)Legal Aid

The religious-based court system offers litigants the opportunity to settle disputes at considerably less cost than the Ontario court-based system.In order to best protect vulnerable and economically marginalized litigants, it is advisable that Legal Aid be made available to the voluntary participants in the arbitration system.In addition, the criteria employed by the Legal Aid system in Ontario should be expanded to allow for coverage of the costs incurred in obtaining our recommended Certificate of Independent Legal Advice, as well as the review by court-recognized experts of the opposing party?s financial disclosure that we have recommended be made a statutory requirement in any family law proceeding.This can be done by ensuring that the lawyer is obliged under the statutory regulations toinform the litigant of the duty to disclose financial information under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act and the income disclosure requirements under Canada?s Divorce Act.The lawyer will then document this in the completed Certificate of Independent Legal Advice (see paragraph 5 of the recommended Certificate in Appendix A).Consideration should also be made to expanding Legal Aid to permit the issuance of Legal Aid certificates when arbitration is used as an alternative form of dispute resolution in family law cases, whether before religious courts or other private arbitrators, as a means to reduce the cost of resolving family law disputes.

VI.Conclusion

It is B'nai Brith Canada's recommendation that Ontario lawyers and the Superior Court be placed as guardians of the vulnerable - which is currently the case n any event.This recommendation is based on its firm faith in Ontario lawyers, family law judges and, indeed, the legal system itself.The private arbitration system has working protections built in which, with our recommended changes, will safeguard all Ontarians from any injustice, while still upholding the principles enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.

Appendix A

I, (name of solicitor), of the City of, in the Municipality of, MAKE OATH/AFFIRM AND SAY:

1.I am the solicitor forand am a subscribing witness to this Arbitration Agreement, and I was present and saw it executed atby the said.

2.I verily believe that the person whose signature I witnessed is the party of the same name referred to in the instrument. 

3.I have advised the saidwith respect to the within Arbitration Agreement and I believe that he(she) is fully aware of the nature and effect of the Arbitration Agreement and is signing this document voluntarily. 

4.Prior to signing the said Agreement, I thoroughly reviewed the provisions of Ontario?s Family Law Act, Children?s Law Reform Act, Succession Law Reform Act and Canada?s Divorce Act and any other family law statute or principle under statutory or common law that may affectthis party in her (his) particular case and in so doing I explained what rights or benefits he or she may be foregoing by signing the Arbitration Agreement and submitting to the law and procedures provided for under that Agreement.

5.Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, I further explained to the person whose signature I witnessed, if necessary for the purposes of this Arbitration, that he or she had a statutory legal duty to provide to his or her spouse or person with whom he or she had cohabited full and frank written financial disclosure of his or her significant assets and significant liabilities as of the date of marriage, the date of separation and as of the date when the Arbitration Agreement was being signed, pursuant to section 56(4) of Ontario?s Family Law Act, or any successor legislation, as well as complete written disclosure of his or her gross yearly income for the current and past three annual taxation years, pursuant to the provisions of the Divorce Act, and Family Law Act, failing which any ruling by the arbitrator or arbitrators could be set aside or not enforced by the Superior Court and, further, to provide any proof in the form of tax returns, pay stubs, corporate tax returns and valuations of business interests or any other such documentation for such purposes, if so requested by the other spouse or by the arbitrators. 

6.I have further thoroughly considered with the person whose signature I have witnessed, the educational standards or lack of them, by which the arbitrators assigned to this arbitration conformed and by which they became qualified, or not, in order to arbitrate the dispute or disputes in question under the said Agreement, including the laws and procedures to be employed under it and the extent to which the said arbitrator or arbitrators have an acquaintance with Ontario?s Arbitration Act, Family Law Act, Divorce Act, Succession Law reform Act or any of its related statutes or any of its other laws under the province of Ontario and Canada as they may related to this dispute.

[In cases involving disputes concerning inheritances:

7.Since the Arbitration Agreement pertained to resolving a dispute involving an inheritance, I specifically advised the party to provide to the arbitrators the following documentation and information which I explained was obligatory under Ontario law: 

(a)any Last Will and Testament of the Deceased and probate thereof, together with any known copies of any Powers of Attorney granted to Third Parties, (if known);

(b)any holograph Will or other document purporting to represent a testamentary instrument;

(c)the full names, full addresses and phone numbers (if available) of any spouse or children of the deceased, (if any);

(d)the full names, full addresses and phone numbers (if available) of any third parties that may be under a mental and/or physical disability that may have been financially dependent on the deceased;

(e)the full names, full addresses and phone numbers of any known secured or unsecured creditors of the deceased, after having obtained an execution search and Bankruptcy search, (if any);

(f)a list of the deceased?s known assets (if any); and

(g)the list of all next of kin.

SWORN/AFFIRMED BEFORE ME at the)

City of in the Province of Ontario)

thisday of200__)

)

A Commissioner, etc.

AFFIDAVIT OF SOLICITOR AS SUBSCRIBING WITNESS 

I,, of the City of in the Municipality of , MAKE OATH/AFFIRM AND SAY:

1.I am the solicitor forand a subscribing witness to this Arbitration Agreement, and I was present and saw it executed at
by the said.

2.I have been consulted in my professional capacity by a party named in the annexed agreement as to her obligations and rights under the said agreement and I acted solely for her and discussed with her the rights and obligations that she has with respect to this agreement. 

3.It is my belief thathas entered into the annexed agreement of her own volition and without fears, threats, compulsion of influence from 

or any other person. 

SWORN/AFFIRMED BEFORE ME at the)

City of in the Province of Ontario)

thisday of200__)

A Commissioner, etc.

Appendix C

Sept. 2, 2004

Dear Ms. Boyd:

At your request, I will outline a number of the procedures of the Beis Din, the Jewish Court in Toronto, in particular the things which are of concern to you.

I will address the issues of training of the arbitrators, the selection of the arbitrators, the familiarity of Ontario Family Law, familiarity with the Arbitration Act, and our position concerning the B?nai Brith proposition.

Training of the Arbitrators

The normal Rabbinic training requires years of study.Beginning in grade school and on through Jewish High School, the Talmud is studied in great depth, much of this study being in the area of torts and legal procedures.In order to enter a Rabbinic ordination program, a person must have at least 4 years of post high school Talmudic study.This may vary slightly amongst the different Rabbinic programs, but rarely is it less than 4 years post high school.This study focuses mostly on Talmudic law.The Rabbinic ordination program is usually an additional 4 years.

This Rabbinic ordination does not qualify one to be a Judge, though the bulk of the 8 years of post high school would have been in Talmudic law.

To be admitted for the course to be a Dayan, or Rabbinical Judge, one is required to have the regular Rabbinic ordination.The course to be a Judge is a minimum of 2 additional years, often 4 or 6, depending on the particular RabbinicSchool.

All of the above is full time study, not part time courses.

Selecting the Arbitrators

Familiarity with Ontario Family Law

Familiarity with the Arbitration Act

B?nai Brith Proposal

Sincerely,

Rabbi ReuvenTradburks

Secretary, Beis Din of the VaadHarabonim

Appendix D

B?nai Brith Subcommittee -- on Review of the Ontario Arbitration Process

The B?nai Brith Subcommittee was struck to advise the Ontario Government on the review of the arbitration process currently underway by Ms. Marion Boyd.The Chair of the subcommittee is Mr. John T. Syrtash, B.A. (Hon), LL.B.

Mr. John T. Syrtash is a senior Partner at Beard Winter LLP (Toronto) who has practiced almost exclusively in the area of family law since 1981.He is an Orthodox Jew who has represented countless religious and secular litigants before the Jewish courts in Ontario on family and inheritance matters. and attended to their enforcement in a family law context before the Ontario Superior Court. He has much experience in the drafting of the arbitration agreements used in many of such hearings.Over the past 15 years, Mr. Syrtash has also been intimately involved in advising Rabbis of the Va'ad Harabonim(the Toronto Council of Orthodox Rabbis) on procedural matters as they pertain to Ontario's Arbitration Act.

Mr. Syrtash was instrumental in creating the "Get" legislation, being section 21.1 of Canada's Divorce Act and section 2(4) of Ontario's Family Law Act, designed to help spouses obtain a religious divorce free of extortion.In 1985, he was a member of the select Family Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association (Ontario) that was asked by the Ontario Government to review a draft of the new Family Law Act. He was also retained in the year 2000 by the Federal Department of Justice to provide detailed recommendations on amendments to Canada's Divorce Act as they pertain to spousal and child support.

A former adjunct Professor of Family Law at the Union Institute (Ohio), Mr. Syrtash is the author of the often-cited book Religion and Culture in Family Law (Butterworths, 1992).He has been a regular columnist on family law in both the Canadian Jewish News and the Jewish Tribune for almost two decades, and now is a family law columnist for Sun Media Publications (24 Hours Daily).Mr. Syrtash is a featured speaker and commentator on family law issues across Canada, including four times speaker/research author for the National Family Law Program for the judiciary and lawyers sponsored by the Federation of Law Societies/Canadian Bar Association. Mr. Syrtash also edits and publishes the weekly Syrtash Family Law Netletter on Quicklaw (LexisNexis) and has created Canada's national "Spousal Support Database" in partnership with the Quebec government and others.His corporation also provides a Canada-wide factum service for lawyers restricted to family law.