One of the more misunderstood concepts in family property disputes is “occupation rent.” A common question after separation is: “If my spouse stayed in the home after separation while I moved out, can I claim rent from them?” The answer is: sometimes, but not always. Alberta courts treat occupation rent as a discretionary remedy, and it is awarded cautiously, particularly in the family law context.

In Alberta parenting disputes, allegations of family violence are addressed through the best interests of the child analysis. The court’s role is not to punish a parent, but to determine whether the proposed parenting arrangement protects the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety while supporting the child’s healthy development and relationships where appropriate.

In family law, it is widely acknowledged that complete financial disclosure can be elusive. When one party maintains control over family assets, the other may be entirely unaware of the full scope of the family property. Even with mutual financial awareness, there remains a significant incentive for a party to conceal or dissipate assets, a task made increasingly complex by technological advancements like blockchain and the global nature of modern finance.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Dunmore v. Mehralian provides important guidance on how courts should determine a child’s “habitual residence” in parenting disputes involving competing jurisdictions. The ruling reinforces a flexible, child-focused approach and moves further away from rigid or technical interpretations that prioritize parental intention over the lived reality of the child.

Family law cases usually move on a careful, measured schedule. Deadlines give everyone enough time to prepare and respond, and most disputes are resolved within these timelines. But some situations demand immediate attention where waiting weeks or months could put a child, a party, or critical property at risk. That’s where an urgent application comes in. It’s a special process that family Court uses to deal with truly time-sensitive matters, but it’s not a shortcut for disp

Family law matters can become significantly more complex when one party operates a corporation, as there are various ways to allocate and report income. These methods can make it difficult for another party to ascertain the precise earnings generated through the business. The Alberta Court of Appeal addressed this issue in Cunningham v Seveny, 2017 ABCA 4 (the “Cunningham decision”).

One of the most common disputes in family law is not whether support should be paid, but how much. And when one party’s income is unclear, inconsistent, or suspiciously low, the Courts may step in and do something many people don’t expect: assign (or “impute”) an income that differs from what the person claims to earn

Blended families are common, and many people take on meaningful parenting roles for children who are not biologically their own. What many don’t realize is that those roles can come with lasting legal responsibilities. A key Canadian case, Chartier v. Chartier, decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, makes this very clear: If you act like a parent, the law may treat you like one.

When parents pay child support in Alberta, most are familiar with the basic monthly payment calculated under the Federal Child Support Guidelines. However, many parents are unsure about special or extraordinary expenses, also called Section 7 Expenses. Understanding how these expenses are handled can help prevent disputes and ensure their child’s needs are properly supported.

In family law, contempt is a recurring issue. Parties frequently fail to produce mandatory financial documentation, notwithstanding specific court orders requiring such disclosure. A parent may also fail to adhere strictly to precise parenting arrangement terms. However, non-compliance with a court order does not automatically mean a party should commence formal civil contempt proceedings.

Case Purpose: Mobility/relocation determination— Child safety, stability, and well being prioritization— Long-distance parenting regime design— Best Interests of the Child

One of the most misunderstood aspects of family violence is this “if it was that bad, why didn’t they just leave?” Or worse: “Why did they go back?” The reality is that abuse is rarely simple. Neither are the psychological, financial, and legal consequences that follow. It is therefore increasingly important for courts and legal professionals to recognize how the dynamics of abuse can affect an Applicant’s conduct, both during the relationship and after separation.

When couples separate, one of the most common and understandable concerns is this: If we sign an agreement now, will it actually hold up in court later? The Supreme Court of Canada has addressed this question in important ways in two leading decisions: Miglin v. Miglin and Anderson v. Anderson. Although these cases deal with different legal issues. Together they offer clear guidance about how courts treat formal and informal domestic agreements.

In the case of Shibley v Shibley , the Alberta Court of King’s Bench enforced an unsigned separation agreement reached during two four-way settlement meetings, rejecting a later attempt to reopen child support and property issues based on alleged disclosure deficiencies and “buyer’s remorse.”

Parental Access to Child’s Health Records Where Disclosure May Impact Gender Identity and Safety— Parental Alienation—Family Violence—Best Interest of the Child Family law often brings to mind formal contracts crafted with lawyers and long negotiation sessions. But in Anderson v. Anderson, 2023 SCC 13, the Supreme Court of Canada took a step into the real world of family breakdowns.