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

Clavelle Successfully Advocates for Developer

On January 3, 2023, the Development Appeals Board for Saskatoon allowed an appeal brought by Curtis Clavelle of Robertson Stromberg LLP on behalf of Arbutus Properties Ltd. to lift a holding symbol with respect to land Arbutus wished to develop in Saskatoon. The...

read more

James Steele Joins Robertson Stromberg LLP Partnership

Congratulations to James Steele who became Robertson Stromberg’s newest partner on January 1, 2023.  James joined Robertson Stromberg as an articling student and, since his call to the bar in 2015, has been an important member of the litigation department.James has...

read more

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

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

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.


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. 

Can my child choose where they want to live?

The short answer is no. However, the wishes of children can be considered in determining parenting arrangements. As the Court does not want children to participate in family law disputes, this article briefly touches on how to put the wishes of a child before the Court for consideration. 

To begin, regardless of the age of the child, there is no law or legislative principle that the wishes of a child dictate the parenting arrangement.  (See M.L.S. v N.E.D., 2017 SKQB 183; Redstar v Akachuk, 2013 SKQB 223; and Kittelson-Schurr v Schurr, 2005 SKQB 90.)

However, a child’s wishes can be an important consideration in determining a parenting arrangement that serves their best interests.  The wishes of young children aged 11 and younger, are typically not taken into consideration by the Court. The Court is of the view that young children are not sufficiently emotionally or intellectually developed to articulate their true feelings.

Children are capable of forming their own views at 12 years of age, which Family Justice Services recognizes for the purposes of conducting a “Voices of the Child” report.

If a matter is proceeding to Court, either by a trial or an interim Chamber’s application, a “Voices of the Child” report can be of assistance in putting the wishes or desires before a judge for consideration.

A Voices of the Child report may be ordered by a judge at any stage of a family law proceeding and the reasons the Court orders Voices reports vary widely. For example, a Chamber Judge, may order a “Voices of the Child” report when conflicting affidavits about the “wishes” of teenage children have been presented. Voices of the Child reports are also ordered at Pre-trial Conference solely for the assistance of the trial judge, who is tasked with determining the parenting arrangement.

However, there is no automatic right to having a Voices of the Child report prepared.

In addition to the age requirement (child must be 12 years old or older), a party seeking to put forward their children’s wishes with respect to the parenting arrangement, must present evidence that leads the Court to conclude that a Voices report would be of assistance in determining the parenting arrangement in the child’s best interests.

If your child is above the age of 12 and has expressed views with respect to the parenting arrangement, a Voices of the Child report can be of assistance to the Court in determining a parenting arrangement.

In the right circumstances, your child’s wishes as expressed through a Voices Report can be the determining factor. In a recent Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench decision, the Court found that irrespective of both parents’ capabilities of caring for the children equally, that a child’s wish was the “most dominant factor” in considering whether the relocation was appropriate. In that case, the child expressed a wish to relocate with the mother. Given the assistance of the Voices of the Child report, the Court granted the mother’s request to relocate with the children (A.R. v R.R., 2016 SKQB 206).

The family law lawyers at Robertson Stromberg LLP can assist in obtaining a Voices of the Child report and your parenting needs more generally.

Whether it’s personal or business, we handle cases ranging from wills to overseeing complex business deals, and everything in between. Our success comes as a result of our collective effort. Combining the experience of your lawyer together with the resources of our team, you can put your trust in us to handle your case with confidence.

LawyersSiobhan H Morgan