Could Canada Learn From China’s New Divorce Reforms?

Marriage rates across North America have been falling for decades, and Canada is no exception. Although Canada’s drop has been less dramatic than the United States, Statistics Canada reports steady declines in marriage formation and rising concerns about the financial consequences of separation. Behind those numbers is a growing fear shared by many couples: divorce can feel like a high-risk financial gamble.

China’s sweeping 2025 divorce reforms offer an unexpected case study in how governments can reshape incentives around marriage, property division, and spousal support. While Canada’s family-law framework is very different and grounded in constitutional protections and provincial jurisdiction, the questions raised by China’s approach deserve attention, particularly in Ontario where property and support rules already generate significant debate.

China’s reforms, effective February 2025, shift the country’s approach to property division after separation. Instead of default equal division rules, courts now focus on who paid for, contributed to, or holds title to an asset. Premarital property remains with the original owner unless the other spouse can prove financial contribution. Alimony has been removed except in limited hardship cases. A mandatory cooling-off period also applies to mutual-consent divorces.

These changes were introduced to address falling marriage and birth rates. Many Chinese men reported avoiding marriage because of concerns about losing wealth on divorce. The government’s response was to strengthen premarital property protections and reduce long-term financial obligations between ex-spouses.

Canada, and Ontario specifically, take a very different approach. Ontario’s Family Law Act uses a net family property equalization system that shares the growth in value of property accumulated during the marriage. Premarital assets can be excluded if properly documented, but increases in value are usually shared. Alimony, called spousal support, remains available based on need, compensatory principles, or contractual agreement, guided by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Canadian model aims to balance fairness with predictability, but it is not without criticism. High-net-worth clients often raise concerns about exposure to substantial equalization payments or long-term spousal support. Others argue that caregiving contributions and career sacrifices must remain recognized, particularly in long-standing marriages.

China’s system addresses one issue directly: concern about divorce becoming a large financial transfer. By tying division more closely to actual contributions, Beijing aims to reduce the perception that marriage is a financial risk. Advocates say rules like this could encourage more people to marry by lowering the cost of a potential split.

Critics counter that such reforms can disadvantage spouses who leave the workforce to care for children or aging parents. China’s legislation allows for limited recognition of non-financial contributions, but the focus remains on tangible economic input. That is a significant departure from Canadian principles, where caregiving is recognized as essential work deserving of compensation.

If Canada were to consider lessons from China’s overhaul, the most relevant area would be promoting informed consent. Some Canadian family-law experts have long argued that couples should be required to discuss financial expectations before marriage. Mandatory prenuptial-style disclosures, standardized independent-legal-advice processes, or enhanced education requirements could help couples enter marriage with clearer expectations and fewer surprises.

Strengthening premarital asset protection is another area where Canada may learn something. Many Ontarians assume their premarital house or investments are automatically excluded from equalization. Without careful documentation or a marriage contract, this is often not the case. Encouraging couples to negotiate and properly record exclusions would reduce post-separation litigation and ensure fairer outcomes for both parties.

There are also proposals in Canada to modernize spousal support. Calls for more time-limited support, clearer formulas for high-income earners, and the use of insurance or trusts to protect stay-at-home spouses are gaining traction. These ideas echo some of the goals behind China’s reforms: clarifying expectations, creating predictability, and reducing litigation incentives.

None of this means Canada should mirror China’s policies. Our constitutional values, social supports, and commitment to gender equality require a different framework. Vulnerable spouses must remain protected, especially in relationships with power imbalances or economic dependency. But ignoring international experiments leaves useful data on the table.

Canadian lawmakers, especially in fast-growing provinces like Ontario, may need to examine whether current property and support rules strike the right balance. With divorce rates still hovering around forty percent and with more couples delaying or avoiding marriage altogether, it is reasonable to explore reforms that strengthen clarity, fairness, and confidence in the institution.

Clear rules encourage stable relationships. So does informed consent. As Canada faces its own shift in family formation and rising concerns about financial risk, taking a hard look at how other countries are adjusting their laws may help ensure that marriage remains not just a romantic choice but a practical and secure one.