Freya Kristjanson

The applicant mother brought a motion to change previous orders, primarily seeking continued child support and increased section 7 expenses for her 20-year-old son who graduated high school.

She argued the son was unable to withdraw from parental charge due to an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and sought an advance ruling for the father's contribution to future post-secondary expenses.

The court found the mother failed to prove the son's inability to withdraw from parental charge due to disability, noting her lack of credible expert evidence and the son's demonstrated independence.

Child support was terminated effective August 31, 2023, and the mother was ordered to repay overpaid support.

Claims for increased section 7 expenses and speculative post-secondary contributions were dismissed.

The mother's request to vacate a permanent restraining order against her was also denied due to her history of non-compliance and vexatious conduct.

The applicant mother sought to temporarily suspend or supervise the father's parenting time and requested the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging breaches of a prior parenting order due to the mother's intentional withholding of their son.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding her supporting evidence inadmissible and her actions to be self-help.

While the court found the mother intentionally breached the parenting order, it exercised its discretion not to issue a formal contempt finding, instead declaring the breach and imposing conditions to ensure future compliance, including ordering the mother to pay the father full indemnity costs.

The appellant sought to appeal a costs award from a family law arbitration concerning retroactive and prospective spousal support.

The court addressed the jurisdictional question of whether leave was required for an appeal of a costs award from an arbitration, finding it was not required where the arbitration agreement did not stipulate it.

Applying appellate standards of review, the court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no errors in law, palpable and overriding errors of fact, or errors in principle regarding the determination of the successful party or the finding of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the applicant to appoint an investigative receiver-monitor and for interim disbursements in a complex corporate/family dispute.

Although most issues were settled just before the scheduled hearing, the court found compelling reasons to award costs to the applicant due to the respondents' litigation conduct, including failure to provide proper financial disclosure and late capitulation on key issues.

The applicant was deemed the successful party, having secured the appointment of their proposed receiver and interim disbursements of $1 million.

The court awarded $125,000 in costs to the applicant, balancing the applicant's success against the proportionality of the fees incurred, and declined to order joint and several liability as requested, preserving the issue for trial.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for travel consent to take her 9-year-old son to Turkey, which would require him to miss two weeks of school after March Break.

The applicant father opposed, citing the child's academic struggles and an important school meeting (IPRC) that would be missed.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding the travel was not in the child's best interests given his academic difficulties and the missed school/meeting.

The court also found the mother acted in bad faith by concealing her true travel plans (initially requesting Florida, then revealing Turkey tickets purchased earlier) and involving the child in the dispute.

Full recovery costs were awarded to the father due to the mother's bad faith conduct.

This is a decision on an interim motion for spousal and child support.

The Applicant wife sought support from the Respondent husband, who derives income from family corporations.

The court addressed the husband's income determination, including corporate losses from new business ventures, and the imputation of income to the wife due to intentional underemployment.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) and the Child Support Guidelines, setting interim spousal and child support amounts effective March 1, 2024, and outlining the sharing of matrimonial home costs and Section 7 expenses.

Retroactive support claims were deferred to trial.

The applicant father sought full indemnity costs from the respondent mother following a successful motion where the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by unilaterally changing the children's school and residence in breach of a separation agreement.

The court reviewed the legal framework for costs, particularly Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules regarding bad faith.

The court found the mother's actions, including concealing information, deceiving the father and the school principal, and breaching the agreement, constituted bad faith.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $21,319.45, emphasizing that such an order was necessary to condemn and discourage the mother's self-help behaviour.

This decision addresses an uncontested trial in a family law matter, covering parenting issues, child and spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization of net family property, and post-separation adjustments.

The Respondent failed to file an Answer or participate.

The court granted the Applicant sole decision-making responsibility, ordered child support and limited section 7 expenses, and granted a divorce.

It denied spousal support and a blanket relocation order due to insufficient evidentiary foundation.

The court also adjusted the equalization payment, finding the Applicant had received a disproportionate share of matrimonial home sale proceeds, and awarded costs to the Applicant.

The respondent (payor) brought a motion seeking an interim order to stay the enforcement of his support obligations by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and the underlying final support order for two months due to health reasons.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to meet the stringent four-part test for interim variation of a final order, specifically lacking compelling medical and financial evidence, demonstrating clear hardship, urgency, or coming to court with "clean hands" given significant arrears and prior credibility issues.

The court also, on its own motion, varied the support order to terminate child support for one child (J.S.) as of December 31, 2023, and adjusted child support for the other child (A.S.) from January 1, 2024.

Comprehensive disclosure orders were made for both parties in preparation for an upcoming Settlement Conference.

This decision addresses the costs of a complex motion concerning the interpretation of an interim preservation order's "usual and ordinary course of business" term.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of approximately $105,000, while the respondents proposed $25,000.

The court awarded the applicant $98,000, finding them overwhelmingly successful on the key issues.

The court emphasized proportionality, the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and the respondents' conduct, including significant delays, late affidavit delivery, and a "scorched earth policy," which unnecessarily increased costs.

The applicant father sought orders to prevent the respondent mother from unilaterally changing the children's school and residence, contrary to a separation agreement providing for joint decision-making.

The mother had sold her home, purchased a new one further away, and enrolled the children in a new Christian school without the father's consent or prior discussion, despite the children previously attending a Catholic school and the agreement stipulating joint educational decisions.

The court emphasized strong disapproval of self-help remedies in family law, finding the mother's actions detrimental to the children's best interests and a breach of the separation agreement.

The court ordered the children to remain in their current Catholic school and for their school-week residence to be no further than 55 km from the school, maintaining the status quo pending trial.

The applicant mother sought to continue the children's enrollment at a private school, Branksome Hall, while the respondent father sought enrollment at the local public school.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, ordering both children to attend the local public school.

The decision was based on the children's best interests, considering behavioral issues at the private school, the lack of a spot for one child, and the mother's consistent failure to ensure timely school attendance.

The respondent father moved for partition and sale of a jointly owned home and occupation rent.

The applicant mother opposed, claiming unjust enrichment due to her payment of carrying costs and renovations, arguing the sale should await trial for a proprietary remedy.

The court ordered the sale of the home, finding no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the father.

It dismissed the mother's unjust enrichment claim regarding the increased value of the home, stating that unilateral improvements do not create an obligation for the other party to forgo their share of appreciation.

The court awarded the father occupation rent from October 2020 (when he initiated legal steps for sale) and ordered the father to contribute to post-separation carrying costs and agreed renovation expenses.

The respondent mother brought an interim motion for retroactive and ongoing child support from the applicant father in a shared parenting arrangement.

Despite a significant income disparity and previous judicial concerns, the father had paid no child support for 4.5 years.

The court imputed income to the father from January 1, 2023, based on his pre-disability earnings, finding him intentionally underemployed after his disability benefits ceased.

The court declined to impute pre-tax corporate income at this interim stage due to incomplete financial statements.

Retroactive child support was ordered from September 2018, and ongoing set-off child support was ordered.

The court also ordered the father to secure child support payments by naming the mother as beneficiary on his life insurance policy.

This motion concerned the interpretation of the term “usual and ordinary course of business” as it applied to corporate respondents in an interim preservation order.

The corporate respondents sought an expansive interpretation to allow significant financial transactions, including leveraging properties and transferring funds for a private mortgage lending business.

The applicant sought a narrow interpretation to preserve assets.

The court applied principles of judicial order interpretation, emphasizing context and purpose, and found the respondents' proposed interpretation would negate the preservation order's effect.

The court adopted a narrow definition, limiting “usual and ordinary course of business” to day-to-day operations and management, explicitly excluding large-scale asset encumbrance or intercorporate fund transfers for investment.

All other relief sought by the respondents was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim shared parenting time for their 17-month-old child.

The respondent mother opposed overnights, citing family violence allegations, the child's breastfeeding, and her religious beliefs.

The court granted the father a graduated schedule leading to shared parenting, finding that the family violence allegations were insufficient to deny overnights, breastfeeding was not a bar to the father having overnight parenting time, and religious freedom must align with the child's best interests.

The decision emphasized the importance of the child maintaining a strong bond with both parents and restoring the pre-separation status quo.

This decision addresses interim spousal and child support.

The court determined the respondent's income by including legitimate corporate business losses, rejecting the applicant's higher income estimates based on lifestyle and inflated budgets.

Income was imputed to the applicant due to intentional underemployment.

Interim spousal and set-off child support orders were made, effective March 1, 2024, with section 7 expenses shared 80% by the respondent and 20% by the applicant.

Retroactive support claims were deferred to trial due to prior uncharacterized payments.

This costs endorsement relates to an appeal from a summary judgment decision in a child protection application.

The intervenor, Ms. Renatta Austin, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully defending against serious, unwarranted, and reckless allegations of professional impropriety and ineffective assistance of counsel made by the appellant.

The court found that such allegations, unsupported by evidence, warranted an award of costs despite the general presumption against costs in child protection matters and the appellant's limited financial means.

The court emphasized the need to deter unfounded attacks on lawyers, particularly those providing access to justice in difficult cases.

Costs were awarded to the intervenor against the appellant.

The mother (P.P.) brought a motion seeking interim changes to a consent final order, requesting sole custody and decision-making authority for the child, A.B., and suspension of the father's (J.J.S.) access.

The motion was based on the father's erratic behaviour, including missed access visits, withholding the child from school, refusal to consent to a psychoeducational assessment, and non-cooperation with investigations by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS) and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted the mother interim sole custody and decision-making, suspended the father's access pending his cooperation with investigations, and ordered financial disclosure.

Costs were awarded to the mother due to the father's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant husband sought to stay the child and spousal support provisions of an arbitration award pending leave to appeal.

The respondent wife opposed the stay.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, finding that while a serious issue for appeal existed, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored a stay.

The court emphasized the arbitrator's findings of the applicant's financial non-disclosure and the "no automatic stay" policy for support orders.

The motion to stay was dismissed.