Woman suspects ex-husband of hiding income, dissipating matrimonial property
In litigation relating to matrimonial property following a divorce, the Alberta Court of Appeal agreed with the former husband that the judge should not permit the ex-wife to question a non-party to the family law proceeding.
In Bilous v Bilous, 2026 ABCA 67, the parties married in 1990 and separated in 2015. The appellant ex-husband, who had been sole director and shareholder of two companies prior to separation, undertook a series of transactions, including incorporating a third company with a third party.
This non-party to the family law action became sole director and shareholder of the new company and of one of the pre-separation companies, while the ex-husband remained sole director and shareholder of the other pre-separation company.
The respondent ex-wife claimed that her ex-husband carried out these transactions to conceal his income, dissipate matrimonial property, and support the non-party, with whom he was allegedly romantically involved.
Upon encountering difficulty obtaining information from the ex-husband regarding the matrimonial property and his financial circumstances, the ex-wife sought to question the non-party beginning in June 2019.
On Sept. 5, 2019, a chambers judge adjourned the ex-wife’s application to question the non-party and directed the ex-wife’s counsel to serve the non-party and her two companies, given a concern about proper service to the non-party.
On Sept. 16, 2019, the judge determined that questioning the non-party under r. 5.18 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 – which permitted the questioning of a non-party in limited circumstances with the court’s permission – might be unnecessary if the ex-wife could access certain corporate documents.
On Jan. 30, 2020, the appeal court dismissed the ex-husband’s appeals against the September 2019 decisions.
On Feb. 6, 2020, the judge adjourned the ex-wife’s applications filed under rr. 5.13 and 5.18 of the Rules of Court and ss. 9 and 10 of Alberta’s Family Property Act, 2000.
On Feb. 18, 2022, following a summary trial hearing, the judge allowed the ex-wife to question the non-party as a third party on or before Apr. 29, 2022. The ex-husband appealed this order, then later abandoned his appeal.
As directed, the ex-wife’s counsel drafted a new application and supporting affidavit. On June 10, 2024, the judge ordered the ex-wife to serve her ex-husband with written interrogatories regarding the issues underlying her application to question the non-party.
On July 21, 2025, the judge granted the ex-wife’s application to question the non-party under r. 5.18 of the Rules of Court, with the questioning limited to:
- the ex-husband’s transfer of companies, which were wholly or partly matrimonial property, to the non-party
- any of his involvement in the companies after the transfers
- the questions necessary to assess if there were dissipated matrimonial assets or concealed income for child or spousal support purposes
The non-party failed to appear for the scheduled questioning on Aug. 29, 2025. The ex-husband appealed the July 21, 2025, order allowing his ex-wife to question the non-party.
Exception not applied
The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal without awarding costs.
Based on a plain reading of r. 5.18 of the Alberta Rules of Court, the appeal court ruled that the chambers judge erroneously relied on the rule, which did not apply in the circumstances of this case, to allow the ex-wife to question the non-party.
The appeal court explained that r. 5.18 provided a narrow exception to r. 5.17. Specifically, the rule permitted questioning a person who performed duties analogous to those traditionally provided by a corporation’s employees and officers in a case where the corporation was a party adverse in interest.
Arguments rejected
First, the Court of Appeal of Alberta rejected the ex-husband’s argument that the judge denied him procedural fairness by declining an adjournment request.
The appeal court held that the chambers judge gave the ex-husband a fair opportunity to be heard. According to the appeal court, while the judge recognized that litigation had been ongoing for many years, he had briefly adjourned the matter to allow the ex-husband to collect his thoughts.
Lastly, the appeal court saw no merit in the ex-husband’s claim that the ex-wife’s counsel had colluded with the judge and breached privacy laws. The appeal court also rejected his arguments against prior orders that were not properly before it.
