Tiffani Ann Frederick

This appeal concerned parental responsibility and decision-making for twin children, where one child was alienated from the mother and the other from the father.

The appellant mother sought to overturn a lower court order that maintained the de facto living arrangements (daughter with mother, son with father) and to reinstate previous shared parenting orders or gain sole parental responsibility for the son.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the existing arrangements were in the children's best interests, given the history of failed therapeutic interventions and the lack of a concrete plan for reunification therapy.

The court also confirmed that a material change in circumstances was not required for the motion judge's order, as per a prior consent order.

This commercial tenancy dispute involved a summary judgment motion by the landlords seeking eviction and rental arrears due to the tenants' breaches, including non-payment of rent and changing locks.

The tenants sought relief from forfeiture and a mandatory injunction for repairs, claiming set-off for repair costs.

The court found the final lease agreement governed the relationship, rejecting claims of oral modification or abandonment.

It determined the tenants were in fundamental breach for non-payment of rent and locking out the landlords, and that the landlords had fulfilled their repair obligations.

The tenants' claims for set-off were denied due to lease terms and insufficient evidence, and relief from forfeiture was denied due to the wilful nature and gravity of the breaches, and the tenants' "unclean hands." The lease was declared terminated, the tenants were ordered to vacate, and judgment was granted to the landlords for outstanding rent.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to compel the respondent to cooperate in filing corporate tax returns pursuant to a 2019 order, and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-motions.

The court found the applicant's motion was necessary due to the respondent's delays and failure to clarify her position.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $8,475 inclusive of HST.

The parties, who are equal shareholders in a corporation, brought cross-motions regarding the winding up of the business following their divorce.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to sign draft corporate tax returns, while the respondent sought further financial disclosure and the release of trust funds to pay her accountant.

The court ordered the applicant's accountant to answer three outstanding questions, after which the respondent must sign the tax returns unless specifically instructed otherwise by her accountant.

The respondent's request for the release of trust funds was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent father and the appellant's trial counsel, payable by the appellant mother.

As the parties could not agree on the amounts, the court reviewed submissions and fixed the respondent father's costs at $22,500 and the appellant's trial counsel's costs at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court rejected the appellant mother's arguments for no costs or nominal costs, finding no circumstances to justify such an award, and noted that her offer to settle on different terms was irrelevant to the costs determination.

The mother appealed an order granting sole custody of the children to the father, which was issued after the trial judge concluded the mother had engaged in parental alienation.

The appeal challenged the finding of parental alienation, the terms of the custody reversal and access restriction, and alleged a lack of fair trial due to ineffective counsel and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's conclusions on parental alienation, the necessity of the custody order for the children's best interests, and finding no evidence of ineffective counsel or judicial bias.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for several motions, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and unreasonably by seeking to re-litigate a consent order shortly after it was made.

The court found the respondent's conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level of bad faith, which requires an intention to inflict harm or deceive.

The court also found the applicant's offers to settle lacked a true element of compromise.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $20,460.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for Jack Dutton, sought an order to sell a jointly owned condominium without the consent of his wife, Mabel Dutton, due to financial necessity for their long-term care.

Mabel opposed the sale and challenged the validity of a Power of Attorney and a prior Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The court found the APS invalid due to lack of Mabel's consent to the extension of the closing date.

However, applying the Partition Act, the court ordered the sale of the condo, dispensing with Mabel's consent, as it was in Jack's best interest and Mabel's opposition was not sufficient to deny the prima facie right to partition and sale.

The court refused to order specific performance of the invalid APS to the original buyers.

Two consolidated appeals from Superior Court orders in a family law matter.

The first appeal (C63096) concerning the striking of the appellant's pleadings was found to be moot as the order had been stayed and the trial proceeded.

The second appeal (C64255) challenged the trial judge's final order following trial, including findings of non-disclosure by the appellant, an unequal division of family property (75% to the respondent), and the denial of spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.

Following a motion in family litigation in which the moving party obtained substantially all requested relief, the court determined costs.

The moving party had made two offers to settle that were largely consistent with the ultimate outcome and would have avoided the motion if accepted.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the moving party’s position reasonable and the responding party’s conduct less reasonable.

Although the bill of costs was not criticized, the court limited recovery given the relatively narrow issues involved in the motion.

The responding party was ordered to pay $36,000 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable at the end of the litigation.