Ontario’s Arbitration Act already permitted religious family-law arbitration before the Sharia controversy

Evidence

The eternal triangle of the imperilled Muslim woman, the ‘dangerous’ Muslim man, and the civilized European is fully in evidence in the context that is the topic of this chapter: Canadian feminist and state responses to the prospect of the introduction of Sharia law as an option for Muslims settling disputes in family law. In the French-speaking province of Quebec, faith-based legal options in the realm of family law have been rejected outright. In the English-speaking province of Ontario an option had long existed through the Arbitration Act that enabled individuals to hire third parties to privately adjudicate their conflicts using any agreed-upon rules or laws. This option was mostly used to settle commercial disputes, although Jewish groups had used it in matters of divorce. When a Muslim group proposed to use the Arbitration Act to settle disputes in the family-law arena using Islamic principles (which they described as the application of Sharia law), feminists expressed a vociferous opposition to faith-based arbitration. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 339

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the eternal triangle framework (imperilled woman, dangerous man, civilized European) established in earlier chapters of this very book.
• SHARE: Good for someone tracking comparative religious arbitration — the point that Quebec rejected outright while Ontario allowed all faith groups under one Arbitration Act.