I understand your point, but I don't share your detachment, given the oft-repeated goal of establishing Shariah law in the West, and the nature of Islam. If the conditions include the agreement of both parties, who will judge whether "agreement" is freely given, especially if such arbitration by religious law becomes mandatory in the Islamic community? I can foresee the Canadian courts not daring to inquire, for fear of offending the sensibilities of the Islamic community.
We already have a hint of future trouble in the mention in this article of the reticence of women to participate.
I have no trouble understanding that Muslim women dislike the idea of being under Sharia law (which effectively means they have no rights). Then again, the better solution for Muslim women would be to repudiate Islam, hit the ground running, and disappear from the "Muslim community" (which is probably what Muslim men keep such a close eye on them)
I see this being long-term trouble as you do, and for the same reasons: coercion in "agreeing" to be bound by Sharia law (with failure to "agree" meaning that you are branded an apostate by your local Imam, with the penalty for apostasy (leaving the religion) from Islam being death).
I can also see problems if the "Muslim community" becomes large enough, with Muslim businessmen telling all their non-Muslim suppliers/customers/employees that THEY must also agree to be bound by Sharia as a precondition to being able to do business with Muslims