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.

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.

Spousal support is often one of the most uncertain and emotionally charged issues following separation. Many people are unsure whether spousal support applies to their situation, how it is determined, or how long it may last. 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.

Spousal support is often one of the most uncertain and emotionally charged issues following separation. Many people are unsure whether spousal support applies to their situation, how it is determined, or how long it may last. In Alberta, spousal support is NOT automatic. It depends on the circumstances of the relationship and the financial realities of each person after separation.

A common misconception in family law is that child support and spousal support are calculated by simply taking a payor’s total income from their tax return (often Line 15000) and plugging that number into a calculator. In Alberta, that approach is often incomplete and, in some cases, misleading. While Line 15000 is usually the starting point, it is not always the final answer.

One of my earlier consultations in the legal profession was about how to share a pet in a divorce. For many couples, a pet is more than a possession — it’s a beloved family member. But when a relationship ends, the question of who keeps the pet can quickly become one of the most emotional issues in the separation. Unfortunately, Alberta law doesn’t always line up with how people feel about their animals.

When separating partners begin discussing support, the threshold question is whether entitlement exists. If it does, the next issues are quantum, duration, and how support should be paid. One of the most significant choices is whether partner support should be paid monthly or as a single lump sum. Both structures are available under Alberta law, and both can satisfy compensatory or needs-based objectives under the Divorce Act and the Family Law Act

Divorce or separation is a difficult process that can become even more complex if a spouse or adult interdependent partner dies before the legal proceedings are finalized.  In Alberta, the rules that govern divorce, separation, and Wills and Estates law converge, creating unique challenges. The death of a partner does not necessarily mean that the family law process is discontinued; the outcome often depends entirely on the timing of key legal steps taken before the person p

This article addresses how property is divided for unmarried couples in Alberta, focusing on the distinction between parties who separated before and after January 1, 2020. In Alberta, what is commonly referred to as common-law partners is legally classified as Adult Interdependent Partners (AIPs) under the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act.

When a relationship ends, one of the biggest questions is: who gets what? Many people assume that separation means splitting everything 50/50. While that can be a starting point, it’s not necessarily how things always end up. In Alberta, the Family Property Act sets out how assets and debts are divided for both married spouses and Adult Interdependent Partners (AIPs). The goal is fairness, but fairness can look different depending on your situation.

When parents separate or divorce, a significant and frequently emotional question that comes up is how the children will maintain meaningful relationships with both sides of their family. While parenting orders deal with parenting and decision-making responsibilities, contact orders serve a distinct but equally important purpose: they ensure that children can continue to interact with significant people in their lives, even if those individuals do not have parenting rights.