Family Property Disputes In Canada: Why Process Selection Matters

A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision offers a clear reminder that in family property disputes, procedural risk can be just as determinative as the underlying legal issues. While the ruling arises from Alberta, its lessons apply broadly across Canada, including for families and advisors navigating property disputes in British Columbia.

The decision underscores why early, informed process selection is a critical component of dispute planning, particularly in complex property matters involving inheritances, exempt assets, or valuation disputes.

The Decision

In Basnett v Jack, the Alberta Court of Appeal restored an appeal that had been struck for non-filing within the prescribed timeframe. The appeal stemmed from a dispute over the pision of a family home purchased largely with inherited funds.

Although the court ultimately allowed the appeal to proceed, it emphasized a key procedural warning: required documents should never be filed on the last permissible day, given the risk of rejection and the serious consequences that may follow. In this case, technical filing deficiencies resulted in the appeal being struck, additional motion practice, and delay before the merits could even be addressed.

Why This Matters for Family Property Disputes

The outcome in Basnett turned less on the substance of family property law and more on whether the appeal would survive procedural hurdles. Even where relief is ultimately granted, litigation-driven processes can significantly increase cost, delay, and uncertainty.

For families and advisors, the decision highlights several realities of court-based property disputes:

• Strict procedural rules with limited flexibility
• Increased exposure to technical missteps
• Escalating cost and delay as disputes progress
• Heightened appeal risk in complex property cases

These risks exist regardless of jurisdiction and are not unique to Alberta.

Process Selection as Strategic Risk Management

One of the clearest takeaways from Basnett is that process selection should be treated as a strategic decision at the outset of a family property dispute.

Mediation and arbitration offer families greater control over timing, procedure, and scope. When used early and deliberately, these processes can:

• Reduce exposure to procedural and appellate risk
• Contain costs by avoiding layered litigation
• Shorten timelines and preserve financial resources
• Support durable, informed outcomes in complex property matters

For disputes involving inheritances, excluded property claims, or mixed questions of law and fact, a managed resolution process often provides a more predictable and proportionate path forward.

Implications for Families in British Columbia and Beyond

Basnett v Jack illustrates that outcomes in family property disputes are shaped not only by substantive law, but by the process chosen to resolve them. Early, strategic use of mediation and arbitration continues to play a central role in managing risk, controlling cost, and achieving effective outcomes for families and their advisors. Selecting the appropriate dispute resolution framework at the outset remains one of the most effective ways to manage risk and complexity in family property disputes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.