Hillary Houston

The parties, Natasha Tara Fraser (Applicant) and Douglas Dale Fraser (Respondent), brought motions and cross-motions for various interim relief following their separation.

Key issues included the distribution of net sale proceeds from a cottage and the matrimonial home, the Applicant's request to amend pleadings to assert a trust claim, the allocation of responsibilities for a leased vehicle, and the division of matrimonial home contents.

The court granted the Applicant leave to amend her pleadings for a trust claim, limited to $28,500, and ordered specific distributions of sale proceeds, including payments to the Canada Revenue Agency and a down payment for the Respondent's new home, while securing the Applicant's claims through the Respondent's RRSP investments and a portion of the cottage sale proceeds.

The court also made orders regarding the Honda Odyssey vehicle and the interim possession of certain matrimonial home contents, particularly Zander's bedroom items.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an advance interim payment of $22,000 for expert valuation costs, disclosure of various corporate financial documents, and an order for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the request for a section 30 assessment due to an insufficient evidentiary foundation.

The court ordered partial disclosure of the requested financial documents, limiting the scope based on proportionality and the burden on the respondent's business.

Finally, the court ordered the respondent to pay an advance of $10,000 under Rule 24(12) to assist the applicant with expert valuation costs, finding the requested $22,000 excessive.

Following a motion concerning interim spousal support, child support, and a procedural motion to strike portions of an affidavit, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party succeeded on the principal issue of spousal support and had made a reasonable offer to settle that exceeded the ultimate result obtained at the hearing.

The responding party succeeded only on the procedural motion to strike.

Applying Rule 24 and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court reduced the requested costs but recognized the moving party’s substantial success and the responding party’s refusal to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

On competing interim family law motions following separation, the respondent sought implementation of parenting schedule recommendations from a custody and access assessment, while the applicant sought an interim preservation order restraining dealings with certain corporate interests and RRSP assets.

The court considered whether an assessor’s report prepared for trial could be relied upon on an interim motion.

The court held that while caution is required, the contents of an assessment may be considered where it provides probative evidence and where the requested interim order does not substantially alter the status quo.

The parenting schedule was modestly reorganized to accommodate the father’s employment travel and the child’s educational needs, while balancing the child’s expressed preferences and parental care considerations.

An interim preservation order was also granted restraining dealings with specified corporate interests and RRSPs pending valuation to protect potential equalization claims.