Crystal Tkach v. Tyler Pellegrini

(Saskatchewan) (Civil) (By Leave)

(Certain information not available to the public)


Family law — Custody — Support — Child support — Judgments and orders — Reasons — Sufficiency — Court of Appeal overturning trial judge’s detailed parenting and child support orders and remitting some issues back to trial court — Should trial judges have discretion to make parenting, decision-making and child support orders in Canadian family law? — How should Canadian courts apply the standard of review in family law cases involving parenting, decision-making, and child support? — Do Canadian trial judges have discretion to include a “review clause” in a parenting order? — What is the degree of deference owed to Canadian trial judges? — If an appellate court is able to conclude that the evidence supports the conclusion that was reached by a Trial Judge, to what extent should an appellate court be entitled to overturn that decision? — In considering whether a trial judge has applied the correct law, to what extent should an appellate court undertake a sufficiency of reasons analysis? — Are Canadian trial judges permitted to take a “punitive” approach in circumstances involving family violence? — Are supervised parenting orders available to Canadian judges, or has the concept of “exceptional circumstances” been read too broadly so as to exclude such orders in virtually all cases?


Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(Certain information not available to the public)

The parties married in December 2014. Their child was born in April 2014. They separated in July 2016 and the child remained in the de facto care of the mother. The father initially had parenting time but the mother terminated their arrangement. The father issued a petition in March 2017, seeking joint custody, access, child support and property division. The mother counter-petitioned asking for sole decision-making responsibility, limited and supervised parenting time for the father, child and spousal support, and an unequal division of the family property.

The trial judge awarded the mother sole decision-making authority, primary residence and retroactive and ongoing child support based on the father’s imputed income of $55,000. The father’s parenting time was to be supervised and would take place every second weekend plus holiday time. The Court of Appeal overturned several parts of the trial judge’s order. It remitted parenting and decision-making authority back to the trial court.

Lower Court Rulings

September 13, 2021
Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan

DIV 425/19
Order awarding mother primary residence of child; Father’s parenting time to be supervised; Mother awarded sole decision-making authority; Income imputed to the father for purposes of child support
August 9, 2023
Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

2023 SKCA 85, CACV3919
Father’s appeal allowed. Issues regarding decision-making and father’s parenting time remitted to Court of King’s Bench for trial. Interim parenting order made. Father’s actual income used to calculate his retroactive and ongoing child support payable