Brandi L. Aymont

When Brandi may be the right lawyer for your matter

Brandi may be a strong fit when a parenting file calls for calm judgment without wishful thinking. That can include matters where:

• parenting communication has broken down and each new exchange widens the dispute;
• children are being exposed to adult conflict, placed between competing accounts or drawn into communication between parents;
• you need a workable schedule, decision-making structure or communication rules—not just a broad promise to cooperate;
• serious allegations or sharply different versions of events require a disciplined evidentiary response;
• an existing parenting order is repeatedly reinterpreted, ignored or used to create fresh disputes;
• a negotiation or mediation needs clearer boundaries, defined issues and realistic settlement terms; or
• court or private arbitration may be necessary and you want the parenting record prepared for that possibility from the outset.

Steady judgment when the conflict is loud

High-conflict parenting files can pull attention toward every provocation. Brandi helps clients separate conduct that may affect a child or a legal result from arguments that consume time but do not move the file. The first job is often to identify what order or agreement governs, what is happening in practice, what evidence is reliable and what decision is actually needed.

These files may involve repeated challenges at exchanges, unilateral changes to schedules, conflict over school or medical decisions, withheld information, allegations that expand faster than they can be answered, or a child being asked to carry messages between adults. The response has to be specific. A broad demand to “co-parent better” is rarely enough when the problem is a recurring pattern.

A useful parenting plan has to survive ordinary Tuesdays as well as holidays. It should address exchanges, school and medical information, travel, activities, decision-making, communication channels and a method for resolving the next disagreement. In some families, detailed boundaries and a lower-contact structure are more realistic than frequent collaboration. Where interim arrangements are needed, Brandi keeps the immediate proposal connected to a durable long-term plan.

Court-ready does not mean court-bound

Brandi has appeared before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta and the Alberta Court of Justice and has acted for clients in private arbitrations. She has also completed mediation training. Together, that experience informs a question clients need answered early: which process is likely to produce a workable parenting decision at a cost and pace that make sense for this dispute?

Negotiation may be enough when the facts are known and both parents can make decisions. Mediation can be productive when the parenting questions are defined and both sides can participate meaningfully. Arbitration can provide a private, scheduled decision-making process. Court remains necessary where urgency, repeated non-compliance, credibility or enforceable procedural steps leave no practical substitute.

Mediation training does not mean assuming every dispute should settle. It helps Brandi test whether the disagreement can be narrowed, which terms need more precision and where a proposed compromise may fail in practice. She prepares a file so that a sensible parenting resolution can be recognized and accepted, while preserving the ability to ask for a decision when agreement is no longer realistic.

Turn a long history into a usable record

Parenting files often arrive as years of texts, emails, calendar entries, school records and remembered conversations. More material is not automatically better evidence. Brandi helps organize the record around the questions a decision-maker must answer: what happened, when it happened, how it affected the child, whether it shows a pattern and which document or witness can prove it.

A focused chronology, the operative parenting orders, a reliable calendar and a small set of decisive communications are usually more useful than an unfiltered archive. The aim is to show the pattern without reproducing the conflict on the page. That discipline gives you a clearer picture of what is strong, what remains uncertain and what may not justify another application.

Reduce the number of decisions that can become a fight

In a high-conflict file, vague parenting language can create a new argument every week. Clear terms can identify where exchanges occur, how notice is given, which communication channel is used, when school and medical information must be shared, how travel is addressed and what happens when the ordinary schedule cannot operate.

The right amount of structure depends on the family. Some parents need room to make flexible arrangements. Others need precise boundaries, limited direct contact and a defined process for the decisions that remain joint. Brandi works toward terms that fit the actual conflict—not an idealized version of how the parents ought to communicate.

What twenty years changes

Experience does not make a difficult family decision easy. It changes the questions asked at the beginning. Brandi looks for the issue that could alter the result, the deadline that cannot be missed, the evidence worth obtaining and the point at which another round of correspondence costs more than it solves.

Her earlier work in criminal defence and general practice adds useful perspective: contested facts must be tested, allegations are not proof, and advice has to account for the person’s wider life—not only the legal claim in front of the court. Clients can expect direct advice about both the strength of a position and the practical cost of pursuing it.

What to bring to a useful first conversation

You do not need to assemble the whole case before speaking with a lawyer. If available, bring:

1. the current parenting order, parenting plan, agreement or draft proposal;
2. a one-page timeline of the separation and the events most relevant to the present parenting dispute;
3. the schedule the children are actually following, including any recent unilateral changes;
4. any upcoming court, arbitration, school, travel or relocation date;
5. relevant school, medical or activity records; and
6. a short selection of the messages that best show the problem—not every message exchanged.

If something important is missing, write down what it is and who may have it. Identifying the gap is often more useful than delaying the conversation while trying to reconstruct the file alone.

Professional record

• Role: Partner, Fraese Aymont Family Lawyers.
• Bar calls: Saskatchewan in 2005 and Alberta in 2006.
• Education: University of Saskatchewan LL.B. (2004).
• Court experience: Court of King’s Bench of Alberta and Alberta Court of Justice.
• Other resolution processes: Representing clients in parenting negotiations, mediation and private family-law arbitration.
• Career background: Criminal defence, general practice and family law before joining the firm in 2020; joined the partnership in 2025.