When Can You Question a Third Party? Bilous v Bilous, 2026 ABCA 67 | Stokes Law Family

← Blogs

In the recent Alberta decision of Bilous v Bilous, 2026 ABCA 67, the courts had to consider when to question a third party. Bilous discusses the intricacies of trying to get a third party to be questioned in the hopes of uncovering alleged hidden financials. Ultimately, the courts must consider Alberta Rules of Court 5.18 to determine whether questioning a third party is required.

Bilous v Bilous, 2026 ABCA 67

Bilous v Bilous is a case about a wife alleging that her ex-husband is hiding money to mitigate the support payments he would be required to pay and to reduce the total property to be divided.

The wife suspected that the ex-husband had hidden money in another business that was started by him and his new wife, H. The company's sole director and shareholder is the new wife, which raised suspicions. The ex-husband is a businessman with prior ownership in two other businesses, which added to those suspicions.

The Court of Appeal had to answer whether the appropriate analysis was used to determine whether H should be questioned about the new company that she was, on paper, running and operating.

Alberta Rules of Court 5.18

Rule 5.18 says a third party can be questioned if:

1. a party cannot obtain relevant and material information from an officer, employee, or former officer;
2. it would be unfair to require the party seeking the information to proceed to trial without having the opportunity to ask questions about the information sought; and
3. the questioning will not cause undue hardship, expense or delay to, or unfairness to, any other party or to the person to be questioned.

On the surface, the plain reading seemed applicable. H could be hiding relevant information; it could be unfair to proceed to trial without it; and questioning would not impose undue hardship. The Court of Appeal nonetheless allowed the appeal, protecting H from questioning, because the information could have been obtained through ordinary disclosure. The trial court erred in believing the information must come from questioning.

The Intentions of Rule 5.18

The court in Bilous stressed that Rule 5.18 is a narrow exception to the general rule of 5.17. Rule 5.17 allows a party to question those who have a relatively close nexus to the case. Rule 5.18 is supposed to be rare and committed to in exceptional circumstances. Bilous is a standard circumstance where there could be undocumented funds in a separate corporation — so the appeal court corrected course.

Bilous highlights two things. First, that application of the law to the facts can be missed even at the professional level — true due diligence is needed in making sure the rules, regulations, statutes, and case law actually apply. Second, that the request to question a third party, even one in close relations to the case, should not be applied as a blanket rule.

Behind every citation are real people affected by these proceedings. It is our job as professionals in the legal system to make sure that during difficult times the law does not damage your life any further.

Talk through your situation with our team

This article is general information about Alberta family law, not legal advice. Every family is different — book a free 30-minute consultation and we'll walk through how the law applies to you.

Book a free consultation →

More blogs

Family Violence\ \ Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes New Tort of Intimate Partner Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia Privacy & Torts\ \ Can I Sue Someone for Sharing Intimate Images Without My Consent? Alberta Court Awards $92,500 Property Division\ \ Who Gets the Pet After Separation? Alberta Confirms It's Not About the "Best Interests of the Cat"