FamilyCounsel.ca
Patreon
Want to support FamilyCounsel.ca's development,
advertise here, or receive other exclusive perks?
Become a Patron

Proposals

These proposals let family law lawyers discuss and vote on what changes they think should be made to the law or court procedures. The results can be viewed and shared with legislators and the Courts. The proposals put forth are written by member lawyers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or its administrators. You can view more proposals or make a proposal yourself.


Proposal: Resolution Counsel work well as is
ADR - Nov 23rd

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)1 Comment

This time the QB Family Law Consulting Committee is seeking feedback regarding ADR processes, in particular those which the courthouse oversees (although you're welcome to provide comments about other processes). They're looking for both criticism and praise of what does work well, and any suggestions about how to improve the process. I will pass along your feedback, or you're welcome to provide feedback directly to Teri Burant at tburant@emeryjamieson.com or 780-970-6291. Please provide feedback by December 8, 2021.

50% in favour out of 4 votes


Proposal: QB JDRs work well as is
ADR - Nov 23rd

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)0 Comments

This time the QB Family Law Consulting Committee is seeking feedback regarding ADR processes, in particular those which the courthouse oversees (although you're welcome to provide comments about other processes). They're looking for both criticism and praise of what does work well, and any suggestions about how to improve the process. I will pass along your feedback, or you're welcome to provide feedback directly to Teri Burant at tburant@emeryjamieson.com or 780-970-6291. Please provide feedback by December 8, 2021.

50% in favour out of 8 votes


Proposal: EICCs work well as is
ADR - Nov 23rd

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)0 Comments

This time the QB Family Law Consulting Committee is seeking feedback regarding ADR processes, in particular those which the courthouse oversees (although you're welcome to provide comments about other processes). They're looking for both criticism and praise of what does work well, and any suggestions about how to improve the process. I will pass along your feedback, or you're welcome to provide feedback directly to Teri Burant at tburant@emeryjamieson.com or 780-970-6291. Please provide feedback by December 8, 2021.

71% in favour out of 7 votes


Proposal: RCAS mediation works well as is
ADR - Nov 23rd

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)0 Comments

This time the QB Family Law Consulting Committee is seeking feedback regarding ADR processes, in particular those which the courthouse oversees (although you're welcome to provide comments about other processes). They're looking for both criticism and praise of what does work well, and any suggestions about how to improve the process. I will pass along your feedback, or you're welcome to provide feedback directly to Teri Burant at tburant@emeryjamieson.com or 780-970-6291. Please provide feedback by December 8, 2021.

25% in favour out of 4 votes


Proposal: Keep family docket's method of addressing disclosure in place as is
Court Procedure - Nov 8th

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)4 Comments

The QB's Family Law Consulting Committee is seeking feedback relating to the family court disclosure process, so I thought I'd post this here so that I could pass along any feedback. Please provide any feedback before Nov 17, 2022. Alternatively, you can send your feedback directly to Teri Burant at tburant@emeryjamieson.com or 780-970-6291.

69% in favour out of 16 votes


Proposal: Keep the desk NTD process
Court Procedure - Nov 8th

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)4 Comments

The QB's Family Law Consulting Committee is seeking feedback relating to the family court disclosure process, so I thought I'd post this here so that I could pass along any feedback. Please provide any feedback before Nov 17, 2022. Alternatively, you can send your feedback directly to Teri Burant at tburant@emeryjamieson.com or 780-970-6291.

46% in favour out of 13 votes


Proposal: Keep using videoconferencing for Regular Chambers
Court Procedure - Nov 8th

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)5 Comments

I have mixed feelings about this one, I might even vote against my own proposal, but thought I'd put this proposal out there to see how others feel.

I miss discussing resolution at the courthouse steps when lawyers and clients were often all present and the reality of risks on each side set in, the rapport building coming from seeing our colleagues in person, being able to hand proposed forms of orders to judges, the lack of tech problem interruptions, and the effect of the Courthouse's formal setting upon clients.

But videoconferencing means that clients are no longer charged for travel, that small town and otherwise distant distant lawyers aren't disadvantaged, that we don't have to spend a lot of time choosing what documents to print and then organizing those documents, and that we can keep an eye on our emails at the same time. Given that our practice area focuses on individual services and not billion dollar corporations, affordability of legal services may be a paramount consideration.

81% in favour out of 16 votes


Proposal: Introduce a mandatory "meet and confer" requirement
Court Procedure - Aug 20th

Ken Proudman of BARR LLP (Alberta)1 Comment

One of the justifications for Docket is that each side often fails to communicate prior to court. In many US States they compel settlement meetings, at the outset and/or before each court application. There would be additional rules to address family violence.

From Thomson Reuters: "In many courts, the parties must meet at the outset of a case to discuss various matters, including: a) The nature and basis of the parties' claims and defenses; b) The possibility of settling or resolving the case; and c) Discovery issues, including:
the preservation of discoverable information; and
a discovery plan. A meet and confer often saves the parties time and money by resolving issues, including how they will conduct discovery, early in the case. Most courts also require parties to meet and confer before making discovery and other motions in an attempt for parties to resolve their disputes without the need for judicial intervention."

93% in favour out of 58 votes


Proposal: Family Docket Court should be disbanded.
Court Procedure - Aug 19th

Anonymous10 Comments

Morning Chambers was always a place where you could get procedural direction, but it was also a place where substantive but basic matters could be dealt with too. Now we have Docket, and Docket Bypass, and I just don't see the point.

53% in favour out of 38 votes


Proposal: Correct Clerk's interpretation of Section 7 Divorce Act; Rules of Court
Other - Aug 16th

Anonymous3 Comments
The Divorce Act is federal legislation and property issues fall under provincial legislation. The constitution dealt with the division of powers.

The obligations under Section 7 of the Divorce Act have been added to the Claim for Divorce. During the introduction to the changes sponsored by the federal department, it was stated that section 7 was added to the Act for the benefit of reducing conflict over children. There was no indication that Section 7 was intended to apply to any other claim under the Divorce Act.

The Statement by Plaintiff refers to "parenting time", "protecting children", "resolving disputes through family dispute resolution processes", "providing current information required under the Act" and "complying with any Order under the Act". They are all statements that refer to parenting of children which falls under the Divorce Act.

The Clerks insist that every Claim for divorce, even where there are no children, include the Statement of Plaintiff signed by the clients. They will not accept a Claim for filing without that Statement being signed.

There is no jurisdiction to apply the federal Act to the division of matrimonial property which falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Even if they are applying Section 7 to the overall granting of a Divorce, it would be redundant to require up to date information as it relates to the granting of a Divorce, or to comply with the Order for Divorce. No divorce can be granted if the Plaintiff does not provide the required Claim information. In an uncontested divorce, there will be no Order to comply with. The parties receive a Divorce Judgment.

The second issue that arises from the overstepping of the feds is in the Rejection Notice that is used by the Clerks. The Alberta Rules of Court state that only originating processes must be served by personal service. The Rejection Notice used by the Clerks states that if any service other than personal service requires a supplemental Affidavit to be filed to give an explanation why personal service was not used. it seems to imply a requirement ...
93% in favour out of 15 votes













© 2016 to 2021 Kenneth J. Proudman. DISCLAIMER: The tools, documents, and other information herein are not legal, tax, or accounting advice or opinions. This website contains content and files submitted by third parties, to which you download or view at your own risk. By using this website, you agree to release Kenneth J. Proudman, BARR LLP, and Miller Boileau Family Law Group from all present and future claims and liability, including liability arising from any negligence.