Freya Kristjanson

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.

The applicant private schools sought judicial review of Ontario's decision to allocate the federal 'Safe Return to Class Fund' exclusively to public schools.

Ontario raised preliminary issues of timeliness and justiciability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the expenditure of public funds is a discretionary public policy decision made pursuant to the Crown's common law spending powers.

The court found that the funding allocation was a core policy choice and therefore not justiciable absent jurisdictional error, a constitutional challenge, bad faith, or irrationality, none of which were established.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the applicant mother's family law application in Ontario, arguing lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

The parties had lived in Costa Rica since 2016, where their assets and children were located, and where family law proceedings were already underway.

The court found that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as there was no real and substantial connection to the province.

Alternatively, the court held that Costa Rica was the clearly more appropriate forum and dismissed the Ontario application.

The appellant appealed two decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

In the first appeal, the appellant argued that an adjudicator reconsidering their own decision violated procedural fairness.

In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the Tribunal's withdrawal of a decision mistakenly rendered by an adjudicator who did not hear the oral evidence created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the Tribunal's reconsideration process is procedurally fair and that correcting an administrative error by withdrawing the mistaken decision and having the correct adjudicator issue a new one cured any procedural defect without raising a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant purchased a property formerly owned by a library board, which was subject to a registered restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial use.

The registered covenant failed to identify the benefitted lands, rendering it legally unenforceable.

The respondent, owner of the adjacent lands, successfully applied to a motion judge to rectify the Land Titles Registry to include the benefitted lands.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the rectification, holding that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice of the benefitted lands.

The court emphasized that constructive notice is insufficient to defeat a registered interest under the Land Titles Act, and the appellant was entitled to rely on the registry's mirror and curtain principles.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their applications for bad faith eviction and tenant rights violations.

The landlords had served an N12 notice for purchaser's own use, but title was ultimately taken by a corporation.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the landlords did not act in bad faith at the time the notice was served.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the tenant rights application on the basis of res judicata, as the issues could have been raised in a prior proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for a 70% share of profits from a gaming table supply contract.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the agreement was for 30% of net profits, noting no palpable and overriding error in the credibility assessments.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct a mathematical error conceded by the respondent, as the trial judge failed to account for payments already made.

The appellant was penalized in costs for making unfounded allegations of fraud.

The appellants brought a motion in writing to amend a previous decision of the Divisional Court, which had allowed their appeal but did not award costs of the underlying action due to a misunderstanding that they were not sought.

As no order had yet been issued or entered, the court remained seized under Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the appellants were entitled to costs of the action based on their successful appeal, and awarded $25,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify her class proceeding for breach of fiduciary duty against her investment advisors.

The appellant argued that the advisors' professional rules and codes of ethics established a fiduciary relationship on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an ad hoc fiduciary duty between a financial advisor and a client requires a multi-factor, case-by-case analysis, and cannot be established solely based on professional rules and ethical codes.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to deny them the right to rent space for a Hallowe'en-themed event due to alleged harassment of staff.

The Board raised a preliminary issue that the decision was a private contractual matter and not subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the decision to not enter into a short-term rental agreement was an exercise of private law discretion, not a statutory power of decision or a matter of sufficient public character.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent construction manager its share of cost savings under a construction management contract.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the contract, her refusal to strike an affidavit, and her finding that the cost savings were lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's contractual interpretation or her conclusion that cost savings constitute a lienable service.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry deeming a competing company's aggregate permit application complete.

The Ministry processes applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

The applicant argued the competing application was incomplete as it failed to meet the requirements of the Provincial Standards and Ministry Policies regarding environmental and cultural heritage reports.

The Divisional Court found the Ministry's decision unreasonable because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its own mandatory policies when assessing completeness.

The decision was quashed, but the court declined to issue an order of mandamus, instead remitting the matter back to the Ministry for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to change child support.

He argued the motion judge erred by failing to impute income to the respondent and by refusing to order her to pay a proportionate share of his childcare and transportation costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for intentional under-employment or in the finding that the childcare costs were neither necessary nor reasonable.