From Bill C‑78 to the Modern Divorce Act: What Changed — and Why It Still Matters

In 2018, I wrote about Bill C‑78, much‑needed family law reform that promised to shift Canadian divorce law toward a more child‑centred, less adversarial framework. At the time, it was still a bill — proposed legislation, debated and scrutinized, but not yet the law.

Several years on, it is worth revisiting that reform — not only because its effects are now firmly embedded in practice, but also because the language we use to describe it has (quietly) evolved.

Is it still called Bill C‑78?

Formally, no.

Bill C‑78 was the legislative vehicle that introduced sweeping amendments to the Divorce Act and related statutes. Once it received Royal Assent and came into force on July 1, 2020, it stopped being “Bill C‑78” and became law.

Today, the correct reference is to:

• the Divorce Act, as amended, or

• the 2019 Divorce Act reforms, or

• the Divorce Act (as amended July 1, 2020)

That said, you will still hear practitioners, academics, and even judges refer informally to “the Bill C‑78 reforms.” This is shorthand — useful in conversation, but no longer technically precise.

What actually changed?

The reforms introduced by Bill C‑78 were not cosmetic. They represented a deliberate re‑orientation of family law away from ownership‑based language and toward children’s lived experience.

Among the most significant changes:

1. Language matters — and it was rewritten

The Act eliminated the terms custody and access, replacing them with:

• decision‑making responsibility, and

• parenting time

This was not semantics for its own sake. The goal was to reduce parental conflict driven by winner‑loser framing and to focus attention on responsibilities rather than rights.

2. A clearer, child‑centred best‑interests test

The best interests of the child analysis was expanded and clarified, with a detailed, non‑exhaustive list of factors — including the child’s needs, circumstances, and relationships — intended to guide decision‑makers in a more transparent way.

3. Family violence brought to the foreground

For the first time, the Divorce Act explicitly defined family violence and required courts to consider its impact on:

• the child,

• the ability of parents to cooperate, and

• the appropriateness of various parenting arrangements

Importantly, the focus is not only on past conduct, but on risk and safety going forward.

4. Encouragement of non‑adversarial dispute resolution

The amended Act places renewed emphasis on:

• negotiation,

• mediation,

• arbitration, and

• parenting coordination

where appropriate — alongside proportionality, cooperation, and timely resolution.

Why this still matters in 2026

Although the amendments are now well into their lifecycle, their implementation remains uneven.

We continue to see:

• legacy language persisting in pleadings and correspondence,

• confusion about what has truly changed versus what has simply been renamed, and

• cases where adversarial instincts outpace the statute’s child‑centred intent

For separating families — and for professionals working with them — precision matters. Language shapes expectations. Expectations shape behaviour. Behaviour shapes outcomes.

A final note on terminology

In professional writing, agreements, and reasons, the safest and most accurate reference is simply:

“the Divorce Act, as amended.”

The reforms introduced by Bill C‑78 are no longer aspirational. They are the law. Our collective task now is to apply them with clarity, discipline, and humility — always with children at the centre.