National Volunteer Week 2023: Highlighting our Community Involvement

From April 16 to 22, Canadians celebrate National Volunteer Week (NVW2023). This year’s theme is Volunteering Weaves Us Together, highlighting the importance of volunteering in our communities through actions that connect us with one another and strengthening our relationships.

At Robertson Stromberg LLP, we believe that it is our duty to use our skills and resources to help those who need it most. We are proud of our community involvement and active participation as volunteers with the local non-profit organizations that help make Saskatoon a great place to live. 

Our community partnerships have three central components – volunteer Board memberships, sponsorships and donations, and community involvement.

Board Memberships

Non-profit organizations are essential for building an engaged and collaborative community. Our lawyers serve on Boards as a way to support our community and to build capacity within organizations that often have limited resources.

As Board members, Robertson Stromberg lawyers volunteer their time – and provide governance expertise and oversight – to some of our community’s most active non-profit organizations and charities.

Our Board memberships include Big Brothers Big Sisters of Saskatoon and Area, Dress for Success Saskatoon, the Law Foundation of Saskatchewan, READ Saskatoon, Remai Modern art gallery and Station 20 West community centre. These organizations address issues ranging from food security in the city’s core neighbourhoods to inclusiveness and economic empowerment.

As Board members, Robertson Stromberg lawyers volunteer their time – and provide governance expertise and oversight – to some of our community’s most active non-profit organizations and charities.

Sponsorships and Donations

Robertson Stromberg recognizes that the backbone of any charitable organization is its volunteers. That’s why we commit our sponsorship dollars to assist non-profit organizations in building capacity to support those individuals who give their time to make our community great.

Some examples of organizations we support through sponsorships and donations are the Okihtcitawak Patrol Group (OPG), Prairie Hospice Society, Hockey Day in Saskatchewan, and the Secret Santa Foundation. The OPG is an Indigenous created and led community-based patrol group that services Saskatoon’s core neighbourhoods. Prairie Hospice Society is a charitable, non-profit community organization working to ensure access to compassionate, community-based, end-of-life support in Saskatoon. Through the Hockey Day in Saskatchewan initiative, communities have a chance to celebrate their rinks – and to preserve them – so future generations can enjoy the same experiences. The Secret Santa Foundation’s mandate is to provide a complete Christmas to 600 less fortunate Saskatoon families with children under 12.

Community Involvement

As a community-minded full-service law firm, Robertson Stromberg lawyers provide pro bono legal services to individuals and organizations across the province. Through the Public Legal Education Association of Saskatchewan (PLEA), our lawyers offer legal advice clinics at the Saskatoon Public Library. We also participate with Pro Bono Law Saskatchewan (PBLS) to provide free legal services to low-income provincial residents.

We also give back to our community in other ways. RS Partner Misty Alexandre is currently serving a 3-year term as a Director of Sask. Sports Inc. Partner Kirsten Hnatuk volunteers as a literacy coach with READ Saskatoon’s literacy program. And, partner Siobhan Morgan serves on the ArtSpace YXE board, which is committed to securing a long-term affordable space for artists in our community.

Let’s celebrate Canada’s volunteers together. #NVW2023 #WeavingUsTogether

Related News and Articles

Robertson Stromberg Celebrates International Women’s Day 2023 on March 8

On March 8, International Women’s Day (IWD2023) is celebrated around the world as a time to recognize and appreciate the achievements of women.

The theme for this year’s celebration is DigitALL: Innovation and technology for gender equality, which aims to highlight the role that digital technologies have played and continue to play in the empowerment of women.

At Robertson Stromberg LLP, we are committed to promoting gender equality at our firm, which we believe is essential to achieving a more inclusive workplace that benefits everyone. We strive to foster an environment where all employees feel respected, valued and encouraged to reach their full potential.

With seven female partners out of our 14, Robertson Stromberg is among the most gender-diverse law firms in Saskatchewan.

Candice D. Grant

Kirsten M. Hnatuk

Tiffany M. Paulsen, K.C.

“Robertson Stromberg strives to create a welcoming workplace for all employees. We believe that increasing the number of women in leadership positions will benefit the firm, our clients and the community at large.”

– Tiffany M. Paulsen, K.C.

Tiffany M. Paulsen, K.C.

“Robertson Stromberg strives to create a welcoming workplace for all employees. We believe that increasing the number of women in leadership positions will benefit the firm, our clients and the community at large.”

– Tiffany M. Paulsen, K.C.

“Robertson Stromberg strives to create a welcoming workplace for all employees. We believe that increasing the number of women in leadership positions will benefit the firm, our clients and the community at large.”

Robertson Stromberg’s female lawyers practice in a variety of areas, including construction and transportation law, commercial litigation, insurance and professional liability law, family law, residential real estate and mediation.

Join us as we celebrate the achievements of women who have chosen careers in law.

Siobhan H. Morgan

Darlene N. Wingerak

#IWD2023

Related News and Articles

Robertson Stromberg Celebrates International Women’s Day on March 8

Each March, International Women’s Day (IWD2022) is a day to celebrate the achievements of women and girls around the world. This year’s theme is Break The Bias – addressing the unconscious bias that females can experience based on gender.

At Robertson Stromberg LLP, we are very proud that 7 out of our 13 law partners are women. For comparison, according to Catalyst, 39 percent of Saskatchewan lawyers in 2018 were female.

Candice D. Grant

Kirsten M. Hnatuk

Siobhan H. Morgan

Tiffany M. Paulsen, Q.C.

“At Robertson Stromberg, we strive to build a culture of inclusion and representation. We believe female representation benefits our employees, our clients and our business partners. More than 50 percent of our partners are women, which reflects the strengths of both our community and our province.”

– Tiffany M. Paulsen, Q.C.

Siobhan H. Morgan

Tiffany M. Paulsen, Q.C.

As a full-service law firm, we support advancing women in leadership roles and female representation in the legal profession.

“At Robertson Stromberg, we strive to build a culture of inclusion and representation. We believe female representation benefits our employees, our clients and our business partners. More than 50 percent of our partners are women, which reflects the strengths of both our community and our province,” says partner Tiffany M. Paulsen, Q.C.

Female lawyers at Robertson Stromberg practice in areas ranging from construction, transportation, commercial litigation, insurance and professional liability to family law, residential real estate and mediation.

On March 8, we celebrate the women who inspire us as leaders in their chosen legal careers.

Darlene N. Wingerak

Related News and Articles

Can I quit my job to avoid paying my ex child support?

The answer is no, probably not. If a payor is seeking to quit their job simply to avoid paying child support, this is likely a non-starter.

However, if a payor’s reduction in income falls within one of the reasonable exceptions, and evidence supporting this is provided, a payor may avoid having income imputed to them for the purposes of support.

However, if a child support payor’s choice to quit their job thereby reducing their income, does not fit within an exception, the payor risks the Court imputing income to them for the purposes of support if they are found to be intentionally underemployed or unemployed.

The Federal Child Support Guidelines prescribes at section 19 that the Court has discretion to impute income where a parent is intentionally under-employed or unemployed.

The Algner v Algner, 2008 SKQB 132 decision of Madam Justice Ryan-Froslie (as she was then) remains the leading decision on this issue and has clearly set out the guiding principles respecting the imputation of income.

That case notes that a parent has an obligation to seek employment commensurate with their ability to earn income, and as a general rule, a parent cannot avoid his or her child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income. However, parents are entitled to make employment or career changes that may impact their ability to pay child support so long as the decision is reasonable in the circumstances.

The first stage of the analysis is determining whether the payor is intentionally under-employed, and then, to determine whether any of the exceptions as set out at section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines are applicable, namely, whether the under-employment or unemployment is required by reason of:

(i) the needs of a child of the marriage;

(ii) the needs of any child under the age of majority;

(iii) the reasonable educational needs of the spouse; or

(iv) the reasonable health needs of a spouse.

If the Court determines that a parent is intentionally under-employed, the onus then shifts to the parent earning less than they are capable of to demonstrate that their choice was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court does not need to first find that the parent is intentionally avoiding their child support obligation, only that it was a voluntary choice to become under-employed or unemployed.

A number of scenarios could be considered to fall within the exceptions when parties voluntarily leave their employment.

Given the limited scope of this article, I will touch on the health and reasonable educational needs exceptions.

If a health reason, namely the reasonable health needs of a spouse is being relied upon to justify a reduction in income and lower support, the Court needs to be satisfied that a career change is reasonable and require cogent evidence from a medical specialist establishing that the payor cannot do the work they did prior to quitting their employment.

It is critical that a medical specialist provide this evidence, as the Court in Clement v Bridges, 2013 SKQB 356 gave little weight to a chiropractor’s opinion as to whether the payor could continue to work on oil rigs, indicating that chiropractors are not medical doctors, nor are they qualified medical specialists and income was imputed to the payor.

The Court considered the reasonable educational needs exception in the Hinz v Hinz, 2017 SKQB 248 and D.A. v S.A., 2017 SKQB 108 decisions. In these cases, the Court found that a parent who decided to further their education despite having secure, fulltime employment with respectable income, that the practical implication on employment choices and salary was remote and modest. Accordingly, in finding the educational pursuit was not necessary nor reasonable for a parent to reduce their income to pursue this opportunity when there were child support obligations, the Court imputed income to the payors.

Accordingly, there is a wide array of facts that may support a reduction in income, provided it is reasonable and evidence in support is furnished. If you are the recipient of support or the payor of support and seek to reduce your obligations, I recommend you seek legal advice with respect to your family law matter.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

Siobhan Morgan’s primary focus rests on family law and wills and estates. For more information on this subject, contact Siobhan at 1 306 933 1308.

The above is for general information only. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations. 

Related News and Articles

National Volunteer Week 2023: Highlighting our Community Involvement

From April 16 to 22, Canadians celebrate National Volunteer Week (NVW2023). This year’s theme is Volunteering Weaves Us Together, highlighting the importance of volunteering in our communities through actions that connect us with one another and strengthening our...

read more

Enforceability of Parenting Agreements by the Court and Police

Is my parenting agreement enforceable by the Court or by the police?

The short answer is no – well, could it be?!

Will the Court enforce my parenting agreement?

Parenting agreements between parties are relevant to the determination of children’s best interests but they are not binding on the Court. This principle has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada and upheld in decisions of our Court of Queen’s Bench, a few examples of which are as follows: Gordon v Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), Jensen v Walters, 2016 SKQB 267, Lloyd v Lloyd, 2018 SKQB 116, Gudmundson v Fisher, 2018 SKQB 264.

That being said, a parenting agreement is relevant and can speak to the parties’ intentions respecting the parenting of their child or children.

Whether the Court adopts and orders the terms provided for by an agreement really comes down to the weight the Court affords a parenting agreement.

The weight the Court gives an agreement is dependent on a number of factors, including how the agreement was reached, the circumstances of negotiation and signing the agreement, the date of the agreement,  whether any changes have occurred since the agreement was reached, whether the parties had legal advice, and whether the terms of the agreement were followed, and whether the terms of the agreement appear to be in the best interests of the child now.

Meaning that if a parent applies for parenting time or to “enforce” their agreement or brings an application for parenting time that differs from what is set out in the agreement, the Court will consider the agreement along with the above-noted factors and will determine whether the parenting terms as set out in the agreement are in fact in the child’s best interests and make an order as it sees fit, as guided by the best interests of the children.

Will the police enforce my parenting agreement?

I think it is fair to say that the police do not want to become involved in parenting disputes. Before turning to lawyers, many parents first ask the police for assistance in having their children returned. However, the police do not enforce parenting agreements and will routinely decline requests for assistance if the child is simply with the other parent, even if it is contrary to the terms of your agreement.

The Court has jurisdiction under The Children’s Law Act, 2020 to order police enforcement clauses and has done so in situations where there is demonstrated evidence that a party refuses to comply with a parenting order of the Court. Again, not an agreement, but an actual order of the Court.

Involvement of the police in parenting matters is far from ideal for children, however, it is a remedy that is available through the Act and can become necessary in parenting disputes to assist with the return of children.

Each parenting arrangement is unique. I recommend you seek legal advice with respect to your family law matter.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

Siobhan Morgan’s preferred practise area is Family Law. For more information on this subject, call 306-933-1308 or email [email protected]

The above is for general information only. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations. 

Related Articles

National Volunteer Week 2023: Highlighting our Community Involvement

From April 16 to 22, Canadians celebrate National Volunteer Week (NVW2023). This year’s theme is Volunteering Weaves Us Together, highlighting the importance of volunteering in our communities through actions that connect us with one another and strengthening our...

read more

Binding Pre-trial Conferences in Family Law Proceedings

In October, 2020 the Queen’s Bench Rules were amended to enable parties in Family law proceedings to participate in “Binding Pre-trial Conferences.”

For background, a typical Pre-trial Conference is intended to facilitate the resolution of a family law matter, or if that is not possible, to manage the action until the matter is set down for trial. A Pre-trial is essentially a mandatory mediation session with a judge, where parties can exchange settlement offers to try to resolve matters to avoid a trial.

The difference being with a Binding Pre-trial Conference, however, if a negotiated settlement is not reached, that the presiding judge may step in and make a binding decision for the parties. The practical result is that the parties are able to avoid a trial if they cannot agree on a resolution.  The judge may determine that they are unable to make a binding decision on all of the issues, for whatever reason, and may direct that those issue(s) be set for trial.

It is important for the parties to Binding Pre-trial Conferences to be aware of the risks of submitting to such a process, as there are no rights to appeal the decision of the judge, except with leave from the Binding Pre-trial Conference Judge on an application. This means a party asks the Judge who made the decision to overturn their own decision. In addition, the parties are required to agreed in advance of the Binding Pre-trial that they will not make any collateral attack on any determination or decision made by the presiding judge.  The result is that the Binding Pre-trial Judge has broad powers with no judicial oversight.

Practical Steps – How can my Family Law matter proceed to a Binding Pre-trial Conference?

To begin, in order for a family law matter to be eligible for a Binding Pre-trial Conference, both parties must agree upon the process.

If agreement is reached, to obtain a Binding Pre-trial Conference, the following steps must be completed:

  1. The parties must submit a Joint Request for Binding Pre-trial Conference (Family) in Form 4-21.3 to the Court; and
  2. The parties must enter a Binding Pre-trial Conference Agreement (Family) in Form 4.31 4B.

The Binding Pre-trial Conference Agreement (Family) identifies the issues to be resolved, those issues the parties wish to be directed to a Binding Pre-trial Conference, and acknowledgments respecting the choice of process. The parties in a family law matter may limit the scope of issues for the Judge to determine.

A party to a Binding Pre-trial Conference (Family) Agreement must receive independent legal advice, and a Certificate confirming same is to be appended to the Agreement.

Parties submit Binding Pre-trial Briefs detailing the issues, the law that relates to the issues, and summaries of the evidence they rely upon, including medical and expert reports, financial documents, etc. and may include a settlement proposal.

Unlike Pre-trial Briefs, which are due 10 days prior, a Binding Pre-trial Brief is due to be filed with the Court 15 days prior to the date scheduled for the Binding Pre-trial Conference.

Binding Pre-trial Judge

The parties are informed of the Judge assigned to conduct the Binding Pre-trial Conference 30 days before the Binding Pre-trial Conference.

How do I get out of a Binding Pre-trial Conference?

If a party should wish to withdraw from a Binding Pre-trial Conference, they may do so at any time up 10 days before the start of the Binding Pre-trial Conference by serving a Notice of Withdrawal From Binding Pre-trial Conference in Form 4-21.7.

If a party should change their mind less than 10 days before the Binding Pre-trial Conference is scheduled to begin, they need to seek leave of the Court to withdraw their consent.

If consent is withdrawn, the Binding Pre-trial Conference simply proceeds as a Pre-trial Conference and if the parties’ settlement efforts are unsuccessful, the matter would proceed to trial.

PROS/CONS

The pros of a Binding Pre-trial Conference primarily relate to efficiency and cost. It will undoubtedly be more efficient and cost effective to have all of your family law issues dealt with at a Binding Pre-trial Conference rather than having to wait and pay for an expensive trial, when it can still take months for a decision to be rendered.

However, agreeing to submit to a Binding Pre-trial Conference is not without risk. The risks involved with a Binding Pre-trial Conference include that the Court will not have the opportunity to hear all of the evidence you would otherwise present at a trial, prior to making its determination.

In addition, as noted above, there is no right to appeal the decision of the Binding Pre-trial judge. This is a significant limitation to the remedies typically available to parties when third party arbiters are involved in determining matters.

A Binding Pre-trial Conference could be a useful process for parties in family law proceedings. I recommend you seek legal advice in relation to your matter.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

Siobhan Morgan’s primary practice area is family law. For more information on this subject, contact Siobhan at 1 306 933 1308.

The above is for general information only. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations. 

LawyersSiobhan H Morgan