How a baby born after June 29, 2025 can force parents to litigate before two different courts — and why two judges already disagree on the fix.
One family, three children, two courtrooms
Picture a family like thousands of others in Quebec. A couple who never married. Three children: eight years old, four years old, and a ten-month-old baby. The relationship ends.
The mother goes to court on an urgent basis. She seeks custody of all three children, supervised access for the father, and child support.
On July 7, 2026, the Honourable J. Sébastien Vaillancourt of the Superior Court of Quebec answered her. For two children out of three (Droit de la famille — 261022, 2026 QCCS 2706).
This was neither an oversight nor a whim. It is what the law has required since June 30, 2025. And it is, in our view, one of the most concrete blind spots in Quebec’s recent family law reform.
Parental union and the June 30, 2025 cut-off
A regime that attaches on its own
Since June 30, 2025, Quebec has had a new regime called union parentale, or “parental union.” In plain terms, it is a package of protections the law imposes automatically on de facto spouses — common-law partners — who become the parents of a child together.
Those protections cover the family residence, the sharing of a “parental union patrimony” (family homes, vehicles and furnishings), a right to compensatory allowance, and succession rights. Nothing needs to be signed: the regime attaches on its own.
Article 521.20 of the Civil Code of Québec is clear. A parental union is formed as soon as de facto spouses become the parents of the same child.
A transitional rule, however, adds a cut-off date. The regime applies only to persons who become the parents of the same child after June 29, 2025. It also applies to those who sign an agreement opting in voluntarily.
The Unified Family Tribunal, born the same day
June 30, 2025 also saw the birth of the Tribunal unifié de la famille (Unified Family Tribunal, or “TUF”). The Act establishing the Unified Family Tribunal within the Court of Québec created it within the Court of Quebec. The stated goal was a generous one: to simplify the judicial path of Quebec families.
Article 37.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure now gives the Court of Quebec, to the exclusion of the Superior Court, applications relating to a parental union that concern custody of a child and support owed to a child.
Which court for which child?
Justice Vaillancourt took the trouble to map out the whole division of jurisdiction. It can be summarized this way:
- Children of married parents, regardless of their date of birth: Superior Court.
- Children of unmarried parents born before June 30, 2025: Superior Court.
- Children of unmarried parents born after June 29, 2025, where the parents were living together: Unified Family Tribunal.
- Children of unmarried parents born after June 29, 2025, where the parents were not living together: Superior Court, because no parental union was formed.
And if the parents become, or become again, de facto spouses after that child’s birth? A parental union is then formed, and the file shifts to the TUF.
As the judge soberly put it, the situation can be complex. Both lawyers and self-represented parties must therefore make sure they file in the right court.
Why the court ruled for only two of the three children
In this case, the two eldest were born before the cut-off. The youngest was born after. The statute clearly assigns the youngest to the TUF, yet it says nothing about his older sisters.
A jurisdiction that cannot be negotiated
To follow what comes next, one thing must be understood. A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is not negotiable. It is a matter of public order. Neither the parties nor the judge can agree to expand or narrow it.
Moreover, the Superior Court is the court of “general jurisdiction.” It is therefore presumed competent over everything the legislature has not expressly taken away from it.
Justice Vaillancourt applied that logic. Because the Superior Court is the court of general jurisdiction, he held, the TUF’s jurisdiction cannot be made exclusive by implication. Since the statute is silent about children born before the parental union came into being, the Superior Court keeps its jurisdiction over them.
An outcome the judge himself deplores
The judge did not hide from the consequences. The outcome, he wrote, is neither practical nor in the interest of families and of the sound administration of justice. He added, bluntly, that the situation is neither desirable nor reasonable — and that this had to be said.
An inconvenient result is nonetheless not enough to make a public-order rule of jurisdiction disappear.
The concrete outcome: the Superior Court granted the mother custody of the two eldest, required that the father’s access be supervised, and set child support at $925.62 per month. For two children. For the third, the parents will have to start over elsewhere, with, in the judge’s words, all the inconvenience that entails.
Twenty-four days later, the Court of Quebec said the opposite
The story does not end there — and this is what makes the case so striking.
On July 31, 2026, in Union et filiation — 267, 2026 QCCQ 3486, the Honourable Johanne Gagnon sat in the Unified Family Tribunal itself. She faced a twin situation: an eldest child born in 2023, a younger child born after June 30, 2025. She asked the question in reverse. Can the TUF rule on the eldest?
Her answer came with all the politeness of the bench: with respect, the Tribunal did not agree with that reasoning.
Justice Gagnon relied on three foundations: the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the best interests of the child, and the parliamentary debates of May 2024. In those debates, the Minister of Justice confirmed that the public-order measures of the parental union also reach children already born to the couple.
Her conclusion: once a parental union is formed, the children already born to the same parents also benefit from the regime, and the Court of Quebec has jurisdiction over them. She was careful, however, to specify that she was not deciding whether that jurisdiction is exclusive.
Translated for the litigant: as things stand, both courts declare themselves competent over the older children of a “mixed” sibling group. This is not a legal vacuum. It is an overlap.
As of July 31, 2026, the Superior Court judgment had not been appealed. The Court of Appeal has therefore not yet had the chance to settle the two lines of authority.
A blind spot that had been flagged
None of this was unforeseeable. As early as March 2025, in its brief on Bill 91, the Barreau du Québec set out its own table of the courts having jurisdiction over custody and child support, according to the parents’ conjugal status and the child’s date of birth.
The Barreau recalled that the legislature “has always enshrined the equality of all children and the primacy of their interest, regardless of their parents’ conjugal situation and the circumstances of their birth.” It then found that the bill “creates an inequality in this respect.”
It therefore suggested granting the Unified Family Tribunal jurisdiction over “all applications arising from the separation of parents of children born before June 30, 2025, such as custody of a child or support.” Failing that, it warned, “unusual situations could emerge.” It also feared that the June 30, 2025 coming into force would prove “too hasty.” (Translations are ours.)
That same month, as reported by Le Devoir, the chief justices of the Superior Court wrote to the Minister of Justice. They warned that the bill, as then drafted, deepened the fragmentation of jurisdiction rather than reducing it.
The Act was assented to on April 10, 2025, and came into force on June 30 of that year.
Why this case deserves attention
Because the cost is not measured in principles, but in family life.
Two files, two bills, twice the wait
For a parent, this can mean two files, two court offices, two sets of proceedings, two appearances, two unpaid days off work and two legal bills. And twice the wait, in situations that are by definition urgent.
It also means a real risk of inconsistent decisions. Nothing guarantees that two judges, each seized separately of a partial record about the same family, will assess the children’s safety or a parent’s ability to pay the same way.
A good idea, a missing seam
Fairness to the reform is warranted. The idea of a unified family tribunal is not a bad one. Bringing family justice closer to litigants, reducing delays and costs, entrusting these files to a specialized bench: the intention is legitimate and widely shared.
The problem is not the idea. It is the seam between the old and the new regime, left without instructions.
Two safety valves, and their limits
Justice Vaillancourt notes a first safety valve in a footnote. If the children’s situation is brought before the youth division under youth protection legislation, the Court of Quebec may then deal with the whole sibling group. The solution is real, but it depends on child protection authorities becoming involved. That makes it useless as a strategy.
Article 37.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure offers a second one. Once the Court of Quebec is seized of an application relating to a parental union, it may rule on related applications. But only regarding emancipation, legal tutorship and supportive tutorship.
Neither custody nor support for the other children of the family appears on that list. The legislature had pen in hand; it did not write the line that was needed.
What to take away
- Confirm which court has jurisdiction before filing. An application filed in the wrong court can be transferred, or even dismissed.
- Two criteria drive everything: the parents’ status (married, in a civil union, de facto spouses or not) and the moment they became the parents of the same child. Married parents remain before the Superior Court, without exception.
- If your children straddle June 30, 2025, be aware that the law is currently unsettled. An agreement between the parents, properly homologated by the court, remains the surest way to avoid being shuttled between two courts.
- Do not assume the parental union does not concern you. It forms automatically, without any signature. It can also form if you resume living together as de facto spouses after the child’s birth.
- Get advice early. In this area, sending a file to the wrong court is paid for in months of delay.
A closing word
The Superior Court did what a court must do: apply the law as written. It did so while flagging, with remarkable candour, that the result is neither desirable nor reasonable.
The Court of Quebec, for its part, chose to give effect to the legislature’s intention and to the interests of the children. Both lines of reasoning are defensible. It will likely fall to the Court of Appeal — or to the legislature — to settle the matter.
In the meantime, families carry the burden of that uncertainty. One may hope, without dramatizing, that a legislative correction comes quickly. A reform whose stated mission is to simplify the path of families should not, in its first months of application, require a parent to litigate twice over their own children.
Further reading: Parental Union: What Changes for Common-Law Parents in Quebec — the full picture of the regime, from the parental union patrimony to the protection of the family residence, with the deadlines you cannot afford to miss.
Written by William Desrochers, a civil and family litigation lawyer at Virtulex Lawyers in Gatineau, instructor at the École du Barreau du Québec and accredited mediator.
This column is published for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Because every situation is unique, you should consult a lawyer for advice tailored to your own case. Feel free to contact Virtulex avocats to discuss your situation.
