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.

The applicant sought costs of $302,215.33 following successful interim and final preservation motions in a complex family law dispute involving a multi-million-dollar real estate empire.

The court found the respondents' conduct, particularly their failure to comply with disclosure orders and late delivery of materials, to be unreasonable and warranting sanction.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments of divided success and their reliance on offers to settle.

The court declined to pierce the corporate veil to make the individual respondent personally liable for the corporate respondents' costs.

The applicant was awarded total costs of $200,000 on a substantial recovery basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings on financial issues due to his pervasive failure to comply with financial disclosure orders and the Family Law Rules.

The mother also sought the appointment of a new section 30 assessor and an order for the child's therapy.

The court struck the father's Answer regarding all financial and property claims, allowing the mother to proceed to an uncontested trial on those issues, though the father was permitted to continue participating on parenting issues.

The court also appointed the proposed section 30 assessor and ordered therapy for the child, rejecting the father's objections which were based solely on the race of the professionals.

The respondent father brought a motion to strike the applicant mother's responding materials on a motion to change, to proceed to an uncontested trial, and for interim child support.

The mother had failed to comply with previous court orders and engaged in abusive 'Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument' (OPCA) tactics, including registering a vexatious $528 million PPSA lien against the father and his lawyer.

The court struck the mother's materials due to her extreme and wilful non-compliance, ordered the matter to proceed by uncontested trial, and granted interim child support to the father based on the children's changed primary residence.

The mother was also ordered to pay $10,000 in costs for her bad faith conduct.

The respondent mother brought a motion for retroactive and prospective child support and financial disclosure.

The applicant father, residing in the United States, contested Ontario's jurisdiction.

The court found the father had consented and attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction.

The court ordered prospective child support based on the father's current employment income but dismissed the claim for retroactive support as neither party addressed the relevant legal factors.

The court also ordered a nominal contribution to section 7 expenses and mandated further financial disclosure from the father.

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.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's claim for child support as corollary relief under the Divorce Act, arguing she should instead seek to vary an existing Ontario Court of Justice consent order under the Family Law Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, holding that it has no discretion to decline jurisdiction over a properly brought Divorce Act application.

Applying the doctrine of paramountcy, the court confirmed that a corollary relief order under the federal Divorce Act supplants and supersedes a prior provincial child support order.

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 respondent brought a motion asserting that the parties were legally divorced in the UAE in 2010 via a bare talaq.

The applicant argued they remained married until separating in 2020.

The court found that a bare talaq without official or adjudicative oversight is not recognized as a valid foreign divorce in Canada.

The court accepted the applicant's evidence that the parties continued to live together and represent themselves as married until 2020.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, and the self-represented applicant was awarded full indemnity costs of $6,300 due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and voluminous, deficient materials.

The applicant husband brought a motion for an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 12 of the Family Law Act to preserve the assets of several respondent corporations pending trial.

The applicant claimed legal and beneficial ownership of the corporations, which held a substantial real estate portfolio and private mortgage fund, while the respondent wife claimed her mother owned them.

The court found the applicant established a strong prima facie case of ownership and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the unique corporate assets.

The court granted the preservation order for the corporate assets but declined to order preservation for specific residential properties under the Family Law Act.

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.