Written by Yeraz Tahtadjian, NSRLP Student Researcher; originally published on Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine.
This column presents excerpts from a student paper, completed under the University of Toronto’s Community Research Partnership in Ethics program; the full paper will be published by the National Self-Represented Litigants Project later this year.
Over the past 20 years, Alberta’s family justice system has distinguished itself from other jurisdictions by implementing mandatory forms of assistance. In 2005, the Alberta government launched mandatory meetings for SRLs in provincial court, pursuant to the Intake and Caseflow Management Regulation.[1] Building on this, and recognizing the inherent difficulties associated with an SRL’s journey through the family law system, the new Family Justice Strategy (FJS) has since implemented a mandatory assistance program for self-represented litigants in family law in certain cities.[2] The program was rolled out in Edmonton and Calgary in December 2023, and expanded into Red Deer in March 2025.[3]Since its inception, the strategy has reportedly assisted over 69,000 Albertans in accessing pre-court services.[4] The FJS focuses on four main goals:
1) Resolving legal matters earlier and outside of court;
2) Focusing on the well-being of children and families;
3) Providing Albertans with necessary tools and services before court proceedings begin;
4) Reducing the emotional and financial costs to families by assisting them in navigating the family justice system.[5]
In addition to the above objectives, the FJS has sought to streamline the court system, assuage parents’ worries, and make the family law process easier for children.[6]
Under this initiative, each SRL is required to keep in close contact with a Family Court Counsellor (FCC) throughout the duration of their case. FCCs typically have a background in social work, domestic violence, mediation, or another related field, and they provide guidance to SRLs on court matters, including (among other services):
- Resolution options;
- Court processes information;
- Assistance with arranging court dates;
- Referrals to resources;
- Support in presenting their case to the Provincial Court;
- Guidance in document completion, including stamping official documents for submission to courts;
- Help with negotiating agreements.[7]
Litigants without counsel are required to work with an FCC. Exceptions to this requirement include litigants who do not have dependent children impacted by the family law proceeding, or those who are responding to an action without filing a cross-application.[8] The program also allows for the deferral or waiving of requirements for SRLs where there is significant violence or non-compliance on the part of the other party. These exceptions must be approved by a judge.[9]
An SRL’s work with an FCC is required from the outset of their case. The FCC will book an intake appointment with the SRL as a form of triage, and assess what the litigant is seeking to achieve.[10] The FCC will then undertake a safety screening process, identify the issues involved within the case, and discuss possible dispute resolution options;[11] their role is to explain the entire mediation or judicial process to the SRL, enabling them to make an educated and informed decision on how to proceed.[12] Notwithstanding this, FCCs are generally not lawyers and cannot give legal advice.
This research project included a literature review and several one-on-one interviews with participants in the Alberta program. The scope of the qualitative portion of the work was modest, and the project is therefore modest in its ability to generalize, but the experiences participants described are nonetheless worthy of analysis, and hopefully, further study.
Although the program aims to provide a better and more efficient experience for SRLs in family law, significant questions do arise. Concerns about autonomy versus paternalism are at the forefront, along with questions regarding whether mandatory assistance creates barriers for particular groups. Further, in attempting to divert family law cases from the courts, there is a question of whether the judicial process is being usurped by administrative policies and direction.
While there is not necessarily an inherent problem with implementing mandatory initiatives, challenges may and do arise when the requirements disproportionately affect one group of litigants and do not allow for flexibility in accommodating different contexts. The issues lie in the practical implementation, where delays, limited capacity, increased burdens, and inconsistent application undermine any prospective effectiveness.
In Alberta’s mandatory assistance program there appears to be some discrepancy between its intention and its application. For example, the time commitments associated with communicating with FCCs raise issues about delay, as well as perceptions that SRLs are discouraged from proceeding to court.[13] SRLs could also feel targeted and singled out in the implementation of a mandatory program that does not apply to represented litigants.[14]Additionally, the inability of FCCs to provide legal advice leaves SRLs without meaningful direction in navigating court processes, something they are often seeking.[15] Lastly, the prioritization of disseminating general information and the corresponding inability of a mandatory program to provide individualized assistance means there is a risk that the program becomes more of a “cookie cutter” system.[16]
Ultimately, these challenges raise concerns about procedural fairness and the equity of programs meant to support vulnerable populations. Unlike the mandatory parenting education programs or mediation processes that exist in other jurisdictions, Alberta’s system imposes ongoing and individualized responsibilities specifically on SRLs, without imposing equivalent requirements upon parties who are represented. Because of this distinction, SRLs may actually face an increased workload, while lacking the practical resources needed to meet these expectations. This ultimately risks reinforcing existing inequalities, especially for individuals who experience financial hardship, disability, or family violence.
In the context of family law, there is a reasonable argument for moving family law cases away from the courts and out of the hands of lawyers by involving more skilled social workers who have an understanding of the situation and can help parties reach a resolution.[17] A commonly held perspective notes that the adversarial court process is not necessarily best suited to the resolution of family disputes, as many SRLs may find more value in discussion and agreement, when it is conducted safely and appropriately. Thus, a mandatory system should incorporate augmented out-of-court resolution options that allow parties to reach agreements more effectively and securely. Alberta has directed people away from the courts with its mandatory assistance program, but would benefit from continuing to expand the supports meant to replace judicial resolutions.
More fundamentally, supportive systems should be ones that seek to empower SRLs, not control them. This would include guidance as well as meaningful direction, should court be necessary. Though mandatory assistance is aimed at guaranteeing a valuable source of knowledge for those in need of support, its compulsory nature may undermine certain intended purposes by restricting autonomy and enforcing increased procedural barriers. Ultimately, according to the SRLs interviewed, a more effective approach might reframe services as accessible, supportive, individualized, and voluntary, allowing litigants to seek supports they need without qualifying their admission to the judicial system upon participation in mandatory programs.
Finally, a robust user-feedback process is highly recommended, especially in a mandatory assistance program, so that the honest experiences of individuals engaged with the system can be collected, analyzed, and used to inform ongoing improvements. By gathering this representative data, policymakers can properly identify and address the specific needs and concerns that participants in the program have, thereby ensuring meaningful access to justice.
_____________
[1] “Alberta Family Court Counsellors,” Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, 9 August 2012, https://cfcj-fcjc.org/inventory-of-reforms/alberta-family-court-counsellors/.
[2] J.A. Hunter, “Edmonton and Calgary Practice Directive: Family Pre-Court Practice and Procedure Changes,” Practice Directive, Alberta, 2025, https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/pc/Family_Pre_Court_Practice_and_Procedure_Changes.pdf?utm_source=PC+Announcements&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=Practice+Directive%2c+Family+Pre-Court+Practice+and+Procedure+Changes.
[3] Jacqueline So, “Alberta government inject $3.2 million more into Family Justice Strategy,” Canadian Lawyer, 24 July 2025, https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/to-come/392806.
[4] Jacqueline So, “Alberta government inject $3.2 million more into Family Justice Strategy”.
[5] An interview was conducted with Family Justice Services Staff on December 3, 2025, through Zoom (FJS 1).
[6] Jacqueline So, “Alberta government inject $3.2 million more into Family Justice Strategy”.
[7] J.A. Hunter, “Edmonton and Calgary Practice Directive”.
[8] J.A. Hunter, “Edmonton and Calgary Practice Directive.”
[9] FJS 1.
[10] An interview was conducted with a Family Court Counsellor on December 3, 2025, through Zoom (FCC 1).
[11] FCC 1.
[12] FCC 1.
[13] SRL 1. SRL 3. SRL 5.
[14] SRL 2.
[15] SRL 2.
[16] Ian Burns, “‘Cookie cutter’ solutions almost never work, a lawyer says in response to Alberta family law changes,” Law360, 18 January 2024, https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1787415.
[17] SRL 1. SRL 2. SRL 4.