OFFREY v OFFREY, 2026 ABKB 660

The Plaintiff was granted Judgment for an equalization payment following a Trial concerning the division of family property. The Judgment specified that the Defendant would either purchase the Plaintiff’s interest in the family home or sell the property. When the parties disagreed on reducing the listing price, the Plaintiff sought advice and direction from the Court. No formal Application was brought.

Justice Mandziuk considered whether the Court retained jurisdiction to provide directions after the Judgment had been entered. The Court noted that the absence of directions in the Judgment concerning the sale of the family home was not an accidental slip, error or omission that would engage Rule 9.12. The manner of satisfying the Judgment was left to the parties.

Mandziuk J. also examined whether a further Order could be granted pursuant to Rule 9.14 to give effect to the relief contemplated by the Judgment. The Court noted that it had not reserved jurisdiction to determine how the Judgment would be satisfied. Justice Mandziuk found that issuing specific directions concerning the sale or refinancing of the family home would constitute a variation of the Judgment and was therefore not permitted by Rule 9.14.

The Court further reviewed the doctrine of functus officio, which prevents reconsideration of a final Judgment once entered, subject to limited exceptions. Mandziuk J. found no basis to exercise the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to amend the Judgment, as the dispute concerned enforcement of a monetary Judgment rather than the underlying division of family property.

Accordingly, Justice Mandziuk declined to issue directions but confirmed that either party could bring a separate Application before another Justice for relief concerning the sale of the property.