The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta implemented the Family Focused Protocol (FFP) effective January 2026. This represents a paradigm shift in the Court’s approach to family law disputes. It implements strict procedural framework designed to improve management and resolution of family law cases. Although Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) has always been encouraged by the courts and was mandatory before setting trial dates, it is now required at an early stage except in limited circumstances. Exceptions require a court approved waiver on a case-by-case basis. The new FFP system requires families to participate in ADR on the matters in issue within the previous 6 months. The FFP further requires that where financial disclosure is needed to resolve the issues in dispute, proper disclosure must be exchanged and reviewed as part of the ADR process. If this does not occur, the parties risk their ADR process being rejected by the court.
There are few exceptions to the mandatory ADR requirement. In regions where ADR resources are limited, parties can request a waiver. However, parties are expected to make every effort to attend an ADR process before commencing a court application. Other situations where ADR may be inappropriate include families with a history of domestic violence, partner coercion, or a severe power imbalance. These past behaviors between parties can make ADR ineffective because it requires parties to engage in meaningful negotiations, which may not be possible where one party is intimidated by the other. Issues involving substance abuse or any other safety risks may also cause ADR to be ineffective. In these limited scenarios, the court may grant a waiver and allow parties to proceed through court without attempting to settle their issues through ADR first.
There are many benefits to settling family law issues through ADR rather than in court. It is widely acknowledged that parental conflict leads to negative outcomes for children, both at the time of exposure to the conflict and through later life. These harmful consequences include higher rates of depression, self-harm and suicide, as well as poorer outcomes in their education and vocation. The goal is that the parties (and their children) will benefit from an early form of ADR and eliminate or at least reduce the number of issues in dispute, thereby reducing conflict between the parties as well as the scope of remaining issues that require final resolution by a judicial decision-maker. This will also reduce the strain on limited court resources and the “bottleneck” that arises when trying to get relief on interim applications or in setting trial dates.
Less adversarial methods of ADR, such as mediation, collaborative law and parenting coordination give parties the maximum amount of control and flexibility to reach a solution which is tailored to their family and children’s needs. The parties can shape their own parenting schedule, rather than allowing a judge to decide for them. This also helps reduce conflict between parents in the long term and they are often much more able to maintain positive communication and co-parent well. These methods are often much less costly and time-consuming than proceeding through court.
Arbitration usually results in reduced costs compared to proceeding through the courts. Parties can keep their sensitive family and financial information private, unlike most court files, which are public record. Many people find the informal setting of arbitration to be less intimidating than court, which reduces stress and potential trauma caused by a high-conflict court case. Many families choose to enter into a mediation-arbitration agreement wherein they first attempt to settle their issues through mediation. In most cases, some or all the issues disputed are resolved, leaving fewer issues for arbitration. If they choose to do so the parties proceed to arbitration with the same person who acted as their mediator, which also saves time and expense.
