DUURSEMA v DUURSEMA, 2026 ABKB 587

The Applicant applied for interim relief in a family law matter, seeking an Order for spousal support, child support, and advance litigation costs.

Pursuant to Rule 12.36, the Court had discretion to order the advance payment of litigation costs. In exercising that discretion, the Court applied the tripartite test from British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, which required the Applicant to establish impecuniosity, prima facie merit, and special circumstances. To establish impecuniosity, the Applicant must demonstrate that without an Order, she would be deprived of the opportunity to proceed with the case.

In assessing impecuniosity, the Court found that the Applicant had offshore investments of approximately $450,000. Although the Applicant preferred not to liquidate those assets, the Court found that it was a realistic option to fund the litigation. The Applicant argued that because the offshore investments were an exempt asset for property division purposes, it should be excluded from the impecuniosity assessment. Bourque J. rejected this argument, holding that even if the asset is ultimately determined to be exempt, it still provided the Applicant with the means to advocate for child and spousal support and her share of family property. Because the Applicant was not impecunious, the Court dismissed the Application for advance litigation costs.