A marital agreement may repeal this general rule, provided it is properly developed by an experienced lawyer to make it applicable in the Edmonton courts. If you have children from a previous marriage and want to protect their interests and ensure that they receive certain assets after divorce or death, this can be obtained through a properly developed marriage agreement. Spectrum Family Law lawyers in Edmonton are willing to work with you on a marital or post-marital agreement acceptable to both parties, which avoids potential conflicts and is recognized by the Alberta courts. The issue of the interjurisdictional application of marriage contracts was before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2016 in the case of S.L.D. v. W.A.D. 2016 BCSC 616. In this case, the marriage agreement developed in Alberta contained a clause stipulating that each party recognizes and accepts that the laws of the Province of Alberta, particularly sections 37 and 38 of the Alberta Marriage Property Act, govern the interpretation and application of that agreement, regardless of when the parties may reside from time to time outside the province of Alberta. and that one or both of them, now or later, of property outside the province of Alberta or, in the event that one or both parties changed residence or permanent residence to a place outside the province Alberta.In of that case, the court found that the Alberta Marriage Property Act did not contain any provision to defer a marriage or cohabitation agreement.
injustice. In addition, the Tribunal found: In Humble v. MacKay, 2012 BCSC 1285, in paragraph 11, Koenigsberg J., stated that if a contract has been expressly reported by parties, that a particular law governs the contract, the general rule is that the courts respect the choice of the parties, provided the choice is: (1) guta fide, (2) legal, and (3) there are no public political reasons why the chosen right should not be applied. […]  Porter-Conrad is directly on point. This was a request that complied with an agreement developed and implemented in Alberta. The agreement contained a clause that passed the Alberta Act and the provisions of the Marriage Property Act were said to settle the parties` respective assets and assets. The central question was whether the Alberta or British Columbia legislation was being applied and what the implications of that decision were on the asset allocation.  Vickers, J. described the asset allocation, regardless of B.C. legislation, as follows:  There is no doubt as to the existence of a marriage contract in this case.
Is it a valid marriage contract? It is signed by the parties and is locked up. The applicant was advised by her lawyer and wrote the document. This was the second or third agreement whose last agreements were drawn up at the request of the applicant. There is no evidence of coercion or inappropriate influence. An agreement to confirm the family law of the Canadian province, in which the agreement is executed by the parties, cannot be characterized as unacceptable. The B.C. Family Court ultimately found that it did not have the authority to amend the agreement under B.C. law because the parties had fully understood the nature and effect of the matrimonial agreement and that it was not contrary to public policy to impose the agreement. In addition, the agreement was supported by the fact that it was clearly considering, at the time of its development, a modification of the residence.