A significant portion of the religious world watched intently as the Ontario government decided how much of a role religion should legally play in the lives of its citizens.

At issue was faith-based arbitration, with Sharia law in the centre of the storm. Arguments over the Islamic code of law fanned months of debates and protests, culminating in a ruling denying its use to settle civil and family disputes in Ontario.

But the practice of not only religious groups, but aboriginals, ethnic and private citizens establishing their own arbitration tribunals to settle matters, is nothing new in the province.

What is an arbitration tribunal?

Whether using Islamic or Jewish religious laws, or the secular dictums of foreign courts, people in Ontario have been able to resolve disputes outside the traditional court system since the 1800s.

That ability was reinforced in 1991, when Ontario's then-NDP government passed the Arbitration Act. Its main purpose was to ease the backlog in the busy courts by allowing people to settle civil disputes outside of the system.

What are the rules under the Arbitration Act?

The Arbitration Act allowed for:

• mediation, where parties involved agree to a settlement; and
• arbitration, in which both parties freely agree upon a process and then an arbitrator decides on a settlement, based on a set of legal ground rules.

These arbitration rulings are strictly voluntary, and subject to Canadian law.

If either party disagrees with the ruling, they can abandon the process and take their appeal to court within 30 days.

Only civil matters could be dealt with under the arbitrary process. Criminal matters had to continue to be dealt with in the courts.

How did religion figure into the Act?

The 1991 act allowed for faith-based arbitration.

Before the recent ruling, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Mennonites, and members of other faiths were given the right to use their religion's guiding principles to settle divorce, custody, inheritance and other civil disputes outside the court system.

The Jewish community, for example, had been using a millennia-old rabbinical court system -- called Beit Din (House of Law) -- to settle marriage, custody and business disputes for decades in Ontario.

Catholics were able to annul religious marriages according to Canon Law.

Many religious groups were arguing that Canada's secular legal system makes it difficult for them to live and govern their lives using the laws of their religions.

For some Muslims, it might not be enough to be granted a divorce under Canada's Divorce Act. They may also feel the need to get a divorce under Muslim law -- a requirement if he or she wants to move to a Muslim country and get remarried.

While religious groups, however, were able to annul religious marriages under their internal tribunals, it still took a secular court to legally dissolve civil marriages.

What concerns prompted the review and subsequent ruling?

In 2003, Toronto-based Canadian Society of Muslims proposed creating a formalized tribunal for a process that's been going on for more than a decade.

The society wanted to see the creation of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice. There, Muslim arbitrators would be allowed to make legally-binding decisions for Ontario Muslims when it comes to family and personal law.

Critics pounced on the idea, saying such tribunals would disadvantage women by forcing them to take part in a male-dominated process they may not choose to undertake on their own.

Amnesty International, for example, was concerned that they could be discriminatory and not fully comply with international human rights standards.

And since different countries have different interpretations of Muslim law, people questioned which set of the law would be applied in Canada.

So in June 2004, the Ontario government asked former NDP attorney-general Marion Boyd to review the entire Arbitration Act.

Boyd found no evidence women were being discriminated against under faith-based arbitration, and recommended it continue to exist as alternative dispute resolution option in family and inheritance law cases.

A ruling by Ontario's Attorney-General, Michael Bryant, was then set for this fall.

The ensuing months of debate and protests prompted McGuinty on Sept. 11 to not only disallow Sharia law to settle Muslim family law cases, but extended that ruling to all religious-based arbitrations.

McGuinty argued there should be one law for all, and vowed to move quickly to introduce legislation outlawing religious tribunals in the province.

Tariq Fatah, head of the Muslim Canadian Congress, has been calling for reforms within the country's traditional Muslim organizations.

She called McGuinty's announcement not only "a great victory for all Canadians," but "particularly Muslims ... and a defeat for Islamic fundamentalists and those who are preaching it in Canada.''

What are supporters of faith-based arbitration saying?

But proponents say faith-based arbitration can be successfully integrated to the contemporary Canadian context.

Syed Mumtaz Ali, founder of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice in Mississauga, Ont., argues that it's a religious duty for Muslims to settle disputes in Muslim courts -- and not be forced to take them to secular courts.

He adds that his institute's judges have been bringing child custody cases to civil court to receive final approval, despite the fact they weren't obligated to by law.

A representative from Ontario's Jewish community expressed disappointment and shock over McGuinty's decision.

"We're stunned," said Joel Richler, Ontario region chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

"At the very least, we would have thought the government would have consulted with us before taking away what we've had for so many years."

Richler said the current system has worked well and saw no reason for it to be changed for either his or other communities.

"If there have been any problems flowing from any rabbinical court decisions, I'm not aware of them," he said.