Katelyn Elizabeth Andersen

The Crown brought a voir dire application under R. v. Khan to admit an audio recording of a child, M., disclosing alleged sexual abuse by her parents.

The court found that while the necessity criterion for hearsay admissibility was met, the reliability criterion was not.

Factors undermining reliability included the absence of confirmation of M.'s understanding of the importance of telling the truth, the inability to assess her demeanor (audio only), lack of contemporaneous cross-examination, incomplete disclosure of prior statements, and evidence of potential influence or motive to lie.

The court also exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence due to its prejudicial value outweighing its probative value, given that other reasonable inferences could be drawn from the child's statement.

The application was dismissed, and the audio recording was deemed inadmissible.

The Crown brought a mid-trial application (voir dire) to determine the admissibility of observations made by S.O., an aunt/caregiver, regarding the behaviour of four child complainants (M., G., L., and H.).

These observations were made months after the children were removed from their parents' care and after the father's arrest.

The Crown sought to use this evidence to allow the court to draw common sense inferences confirming the children's accounts of abuse.

The defence opposed, arguing the observations lacked a temporal nexus to the alleged abuse, were inadmissible hearsay/expert evidence, and were not relevant as narrative.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, ruling that the observations were inadmissible as they lacked a sufficient temporal connection to the alleged abuse and did not qualify as narrative evidence without expert testimony to establish a causal link.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion concerning spousal and child support.

The applicant was deemed the successful party on the underlying motion, as spousal support was ordered despite the respondent's consistent refusal to offer any.

The court found the respondent's approach unreasonable.

Although the applicant's offers to settle did not strictly conform to Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules, they were considered under Rule 18(6) and found to have been unreasonably rejected by the respondent.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, but the amount was reduced due to the inclusion of work unrelated to the specific motion.

The respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs of $7,500 to the applicant.

The applicant sought spousal support, while the respondent sought child support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

The court imputed rental income to the respondent based on an underutilized basement apartment and determined the applicant's income primarily from income replacement benefits.

The court ordered temporary spousal support for the applicant and child support for the respondent, but dismissed the respondent's claims for uninsured dental, medication, and tutoring costs due to insufficient evidence and lack of prior consultation.

The Applicant sought temporary spousal support and child support (s. 7 expenses), while the Respondent sought equal parenting time.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the Applicant and $84,000 to the Respondent, ordering the Respondent to pay $201 per month in temporary spousal support and 72% of s. 7 expenses.

Regarding parenting time, the court found the Applicant's proposed restrictive schedule unsupported by evidence and ordered a more expansive schedule for the Respondent, including alternate weekends and every Wednesday overnight, while maintaining the Applicant as the primary residential parent.

The parties were referred to mediation for a comprehensive parenting plan.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued the developer and vendor for negligence and breach of warranty regarding HVAC system deficiencies.

The defendants and third parties moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the limitation period.

The court found a genuine issue requiring trial due to insufficient explanatory expert evidence regarding discoverability of the systemic defect versus localized leaks.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.