Canada In Canada following consultation with all major religious groups the Divorce Act was amended in 1985 to add Section 21 1 to give the courts have the power to dismiss any application and strike out any pleadings and affidavits filed by a spouse who has failed to remove religious barriers to the remarriage of the other spouse The legislature intended to place spouses on a more equal footing in civil divorce actions encourage women in particular to exercise fully their rights under the law and maintain the integrity of the Divorce Act 1985 by helping to ensure that refusing to accept or to give a religious divorce was not used as a bargaining tool to gain unfair concessions on child custody and access or monetary support This reflects a general strong response at a federal level to any elements of duress or undue influence within the civil law system Bruker v Marcovitz The justiciability of a civil contract with religious overtonese is now being tested in the Supreme Court Case of Bruker v Marcovitz See Canadian Civil Liberties Association In 1969 the parties married in an orthodox ceremony During the next 11 years they adopted two children after Ms Bruker was unable to conceive In April of 1980 Ms Bruker initiated divorce proceedings A link to the decision database is and the full decision can be found with a text search for Bruker under Cour d appel In 1980 Mr Marcovitz agreed upon a consent judgment for the divorce to appear immediately before Rabbinical authorities for the purpose of granting the religious Get Shortly after the civil divorce Ms Bruker personally and through various attorneys and Rabbis asked Mr Marcovitz to provide the get but Mr Marcovitz refused Mr Marcovitz opined that he refused to comply because he viewed Ms Bruker s behavior since the divorce as harassment and an attempt by her to alienate him from his children Ms Bruker sued Mr Marcovitz in 1989 seeking damages in the amount of 500 000 for having been restrained from going on with her life since de Decree Nisi for having been restrained to remarry according to the Jewish faith and for having been restricted of having children Marcovitz vs Bruker 500 09 013353 032 September 20 2005 In 1995 a certificate of divorce was issued by the Rabbinical Court of Montreal with Mr Marcovitz s consent and participation to the get Despite receiving the get Ms Bruker amended her action to increase the amount of the damages claimed to 1 350 000 and to include damages for the loss of consortium Since Mr Marcovitz was in breach of a judgment of the civil court the lower court found that the matter could be argued before the civil courts and that Mr Marcovitz had breached his contractual obligation to appear before Rabbinical Authorities He awarded Ms Bruker 47 500 in damages On appeal Justice Hilton writing for the three member court overturned the lower court judgement The appellate court ruled that the obligation was religious in nature and so could not be judged by the civil courts It matters not that the obligation was stated in the Consent that the Superior Court ratified since the Superior Court could never have entertained an application for corollary relief under section 17 of the Divorce Act to require the issuance of a ghet It is not at all unusual to see the parties in an agreement on corollary relief undertake to perform a variety of obligations that are not strictly speaking obtainable independently but which are desirable nevertheless to the extent that they promote an amicable post divorce environment While I recognize the usefulness of the inclusion of obligations of this nature in divorce agreements it does not follow that they all automatically become subject to curial supervision and control whether for specific performance or damages in the event of a breach In my view in order for such clauses to be enforceable they must be directly related to one of the subje