As the son of homesteaders from the Spirit River area, I am as at ease on the farm as in the courtroom. My hard work, honesty, and commitment make me a trusted ally for my clients and their families. I tackle issues big and small with thoroughness and concern for a fair settlement, while treating everyone involved respectfully.
I’ve specialized in family law since being called to the Alberta Bar in 1997. I work with clients to minimize the destruction of divorce and to help them structure settlements to protect what is important, including their children, business or farm. My particular areas of strength and interest are tax planning, business valuation, and property division.
After working as a family lawyer for over 20 years, I know how inefficient and time-consuming the litigation process is. Therefore, I recommend negotiation or Collaborative Divorce when the situation is appropriate. If litigation is required, I approach it as efficiently as possible. I constantly update my negotiation and litigation skills.
As a Registered Collaborative Lawyer, I have held numerous leadership roles in the Collaborative Divorce Alberta Association (CDAA), which has pioneered Collaborative Divorce in Alberta. Collaborative Divorce is an alternative approach to dispute resolution that helps couples achieve fair and mutually satisfactory resolutions to their marital disputes without going to court.
My clients come from Edmonton and surrounding communities, as well as the Peace River Country. I know that distance can be a barrier to access to justice or to obtaining legal counsel and have implemented a number of practices to accommodate and support my clients. If out-of-town clients must come to Edmonton, I try to schedule meetings for Mondays or Fridays so clients can travel on the weekend. I will also travel to other judicial centres for court or meetings if necessary.
If you are considering Collaborative Divorce, please review the materials on the CDAA website before you book a consultation.
If you have made an appointment for a consult, please use my confidential questionnaire to help tell me your story. One or two days before our meeting, print off the questionnaire, fill it in by hand, and send it to my assistant, Bernadette, by fax to 780-438-5788 or email to email@example.com.
Estates and Trusts Journal
Trust funds for persons with disabilities receiving benefits under the Ontario Family Benefits Act.
Andreiuk, G., & T. Troughton. (1995). Estates and Trusts Journal, 15, 192–201.
“Under the current regulations to the Family Benefits Act (F.B.A.), F.B.A. allowance recipients are not penalized when they hold a beneficial interest in certain types of trusts and apply payments from those trusts to disability-related expenses. Neither trust capital nor trust income will be taken into account when calculating eligibility for, or the quantum of, an F.B.A. allowance. In this way, disability-related expenses can be privately funded through a trust arrangement.”
Reforming the framework in which custody and access decisions are made.
Andreiuk, G. (2000). Law Now, 24(5), 19–22.
“In 1996, the federal government was taken by surprise when public pressure and widespread concern over the state of custody and access law in Canada almost derailed passage of the government’s Bill C-41. Recall that Bill C-41 completely reformed the manner in which child support is calculated, but did not introduce any changes regarding custody and access decisions.”
Putting family cards on the table.
Andreiuk, G. (2002). Law Now, 17(3), 13.
“The concept of collaborative family law was explained in an article in the April/May 2002 edition of Law Now. Very briefly, in collaborative family law the parties agree to negotiate on the basis that neither party will resort to the litigation process.
How does one manage a collaborative family law file, or more accurately, how does one keep it within the collaborative law process?”
Law reform—half full half empty.
Andreiuk, G. (2002). Law Now, 2(3), 16–17.
“Since spring 2002, the federal government proceeded with public consultations about the framework in which custody and access decisions are made. A lengthy report on the public consultations was released in November 2001. Recommendations for reforms to the custody and access framework were to be integrated into the five-year review of the Child Support Guidelines released in the spring of 2002.”
Retroactive child support.
Andreiuk, G. (2004). Law Now, 29(1), 21–22.
“I am a lawyer who is taking an appeal about retroactive child support to the Alberta Court of Appeal. It will be heard at the beginning of May 2004, and I will report back to you in this magazine after the judgment has been handed down. Today I want to give you some background about the questions of retroactive child support.”
The Supreme Court of Canada gets a “retro” look.
Andreiuk, G. (2007). Law Now, 31(3), 11–15.
“The topic of retroactive child support has been in the media more than usual for the past year since the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) granted leave to hear four appeals directly on the point. The four cases were D.B.S., T.A.R., Henry, and Hiemstra. The decision was released on July 31, 2006.”
Reports of Family Law
Annotation to Rudiger-Prybylski v. Mudric.
Andreiuk, G. (2002). Reports of Family Law, 29, 5th ser., 190–93.
“In her decision Rudiger-Prybylski v. Mudric, Madam Justice Trussler addressed the issue of whether a reconciliation of more than 90 days nullifies a statement of claim for divorce where the basis claimed is one year of separation. This was an issue in Alberta where the case was heard, because of the difference in practice between the two cities of Edmonton and Calgary. The Calgary courthouse and Calgary practitioners historically had never amended the separation date on a statement of claim for divorce following a reconciliation of more than 90 days where the basis claimed was one year of separation. A new statement of claim would always be issued. In contrast, the Edmonton courthouse has permitted the separation date to be amended, and there was a mixed practice among Edmonton practitioners about whether to issue a new statement of claim. Justice Trussler made it clear that the first statement of claim is to be used and that leave to amend the separation date is to be obtained.”
Case comment on S.(D.B.) v. G.(S.R.) and W.(L.J.) v. R.(T.A.).
Andreiuk, G. (2005). Reports of Family Law, 9, 6th ser., 236–38.
“I represented the two appellants in S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), 2005 ABCA 2, 2005 CarswellAlta 18, 7 R.F.L. (6th) 373 (Alta. C.A.) and W. (L.J.) v. R. (T.A.), 2005 CarswellAlta 22, 9 R.F.L. (6th) 232 (Alta. C.A.). In this case comment, I am just going to use the word ‘retroactive’ notwithstanding that it is a misnomer, as pointed out the Ontario Court of Appeal in Horner v. Horner, 2004 CarswellOnt 4246, 6 R.F.L. (6th) 140 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 79. It is a misnomer because it is not as though the payor is ‘being asked, after the fact to assume a liability for child support which he did not have in the first instance.’ I also want to point out that S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.) and W. (L.J.) v. R. (T.A.) were heard by one appeal panel, Henry v. Henry, 2005 ABCA 5, 2005 CarswellAlta 17, 7 R.F.L. (6th) 275 (Alta. C.A.) by another, and that Justice Paperny sat on both panels. In effect, there were five appeal Justices ruling on the issue of retroactive child support.”
The Lawyers Weekly
Top court changes the rules for property settlements.
Andreiuk, G. (2009). The Lawyers Weekly, 29(19).
“What are the new ground rules for lawyers conducting property settlement negotiations?
In Rick v. Brandsema,  S.C.J. No. 10, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has singled out family law to impose a duty of ‘full and honest disclosure’ because family law negotiations are conducted in a ‘singularly emotional negotiating environment’ and this is a ‘uniquely difficult context.’ I leave it to the reader, experienced through years of conducting family law negotiations, to decide whether the SCC is accurate in distinguishing the emotional level of family law from other disputes—for example, estate litigation.”