Kreke v. Alansari
- Citation
- 2021 SCC 50
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 December 2021
- Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (supreme Court of Canada)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 December 2021
- Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (supreme Court of Canada)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Majority held that, even if the fresh evidence were admitted, the trial judge did not commit a reviewable (palpable and overriding) error in her assessment of the child's best interests or in imputing income to the mother; therefore the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the trial orders and deference to the trial judge requires restoring those orders.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; trial judge's orders restored (majority); dissent would have dismissed as moot and remanded
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Trial judge's orders dated July 4, 2019 and July 17, 2019 restored
- Costs awarded to the appellant throughout
02
Material facts
Parties
Tiffany Jo Kreke
Appellant Counsel: Karina JacksonAmro Abdullah M. Alansari
Respondent Counsel: Kate Crisp03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (supreme Court of Canada)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge misapprehended evidence in assessing the child's best interests for a proposed relocation
- 02
Whether the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the mother's employment prospects and whether income should be imputed for spousal support
- 03
Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
- 04
Whether the appeal was moot
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the trial judge did not commit a reviewable error; her findings on the child's best interests and on imputing income to the mother were reasonable and supported by evidence, and the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view for the trial judge; the trial orders should be restored.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued the trial judge misapprehended and overlooked material evidence relevant to mobility, custody and the mother's employment prospects; the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the orders and order a new trial or to adjust spousal support; fresh evidence should be admitted and could render the appeal moot.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Appellate review standard (SCC jurisprudence)
Appellate courts must defer to trial judges' findings of fact and credibility unless there is a palpable and overriding error
- 02
Family law principles (SCC jurisprudence)
The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in custody and mobility disputes
- 03
Spousal support jurisprudence (SCC jurisprudence)
Income may only be imputed for spousal support where there is a reasonable evidentiary basis and proper assessment of employability and prospects
- 04
Rules on fresh evidence (common law/SCC jurisprudence)
Admission of fresh evidence on appeal is limited and requires satisfying established criteria (relevance, diligence, and potential to affect outcome)
- 05
Mootness doctrine (SCC jurisprudence)
Mootness may require dismissal or remand where fresh evidence renders the appeal academic
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Majority held that, even if the fresh evidence were admitted, the trial judge did not commit a reviewable (palpable and overriding) error in her assessment of the child's best interests or in imputing income to the mother; therefore the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the trial orders and deference to the trial judge requires restoring those orders.
Obiter and limits
- Dissent (Côté J.): would have admitted the fresh evidence, found the appeal moot and remanded to the Court of Queen's Bench
- Majority emphasized the limits on appellate intervention absent a palpable and overriding error
- Costs awarded throughout
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; trial judge's orders restored (majority); dissent would have dismissed as moot and remanded
- Appeal allowed
- Trial judge's orders dated July 4, 2019 and July 17, 2019 restored
- Costs awarded to the appellant throughout
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 2 December 2021
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 2 December 2021
Kreke v. Alansari Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2021-12-02 Neutral citation 2021 SCC 50 Report [2021] 2 SCR 685 Case number 39567 Judges Wagner, Richard; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; Jamal, Mahmud On appeal from Saskatchewan Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: Kreke v. Alansari, 2021 SCC 50, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 685 Appeal Heard: December 1 and 2, 2021 Judgment Rendered: December 2, 2021 Docket: 39567 Between: Tiffany Jo Kreke Appellant and Amro Abdullah M. Alansari Respondent Coram: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 3) Wagner C.J. Majority: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. Dissent: Côté J. Tiffany Jo Kreke Appellant v. Amro Abdullah M. Alansari Respondent Indexed as: Kreke v. Alansari 2021 SCC 50 File No.: 39567. 2021: December 1, 2; 2021: December 2. Present: Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan Family law — Custody — Change of residence — Best interests of child — Trial judge allowing mother’s application for permission to relocate with child — Court of Appeal concluding that trial judge misapprehended evidence in way that affected her conclusion that it was in best interests of child to relocate and failed to consider or overlooked factors relevant to determination — Court of Appeal setting aside trial judge’s orders regarding mobility, custody and parenting arrangements and ordering new trial — No reviewable error made by trial judge — Trial judge’s orders
restored. Family law — Support — Spousal support — Trial judge imputing income to mother for purposes of calculating spousal support payable by father — Court of Appeal concluding that trial judge misapprehended evidence in respect of mother’s employment status and employment prospects — Court of Appeal setting aside trial judge’s spousal support order, imputing higher income to mother and reducing monthly spousal support payments — No reviewable error made by trial judge — Trial judge’s order restored. APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Caldwell, Whitmore and Barrington‑Foote JJ.A.), 2020 SKCA 122, 464 D.L.R. (4th) 453, [2020] S.J. No. 404 (QL), 2020 CarswellSask 522 (WL Can.), setting aside the orders of Wilson J. of the Court of Queen’s Bench, dated July 4, 2019, and July 17, 2019, DIV No. 423 of 2018, making a final order as to spousal support, and ordering a new trial on issues of mobility, custody, access, primary residence and parenting. Appeal allowed, Côté J. dissenting. Karina Jackson, for the appellant. Kate Crisp, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — Even if the fresh evidence were admitted, a majority of this Court is of the view that there was no reviewable error made by the trial judge. [2] Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the trial judge’s orders dated July 4, 2019, and July
17, 2019, are restored with costs throughout. [3] Justice Côté, dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is moot since she would have admitted the fresh evidence, and in light of this, would remand the matter to the Court of Queen’s Bench. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Mokuruk & Woods Law Office, Saskatoon. Solicitors for the respondent: McKercher, Saskatoon.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.