Background
Yaron Strauber and Leamore Cohen married in a synagogue in 2009 and separated in 2019. Following a 2023 family-law trial, the Supreme Court of British Columbia made orders concerning support, parenting, property division, and a Get, or Jewish divorce. The trial judge ordered Strauber to participate in a rabbinical hearing and not unreasonably withhold his consent. He was later found in contempt for unreasonably refusing the Get and was fined $2,500, although he eventually agreed to the divorce.
Strauber appealed the trial order, contempt finding, and fine, arguing in part that they infringed his freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Cohen cross-appealed rulings concerning retroactive and ongoing child support and special and extraordinary expenses. The Court’s registrar directed that portions of the parties’ trial testimony be transcribed for the appeal and cross-appeal, at an estimated cost of $14,000. Strauber applied to cancel or reduce that direction, contending that his appeal raised legal questions and required only the contempt and sentencing transcripts.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Fenlon, sitting in chambers, dismissed Strauber’s application. A registrar’s discretionary transcript decision is entitled to substantial deference and may be overturned only for an error in principle, a misapprehension of the facts, or a clearly wrong result. The review was not a fresh determination of which transcripts should be filed.
The registrar reasonably concluded that the parties’ testimony was necessary to evaluate the factual foundation of Strauber’s Charter claim, including the sincerity of his religious belief and the extent of any interference. Extracting only testimony expressly mentioning the Get could omit relevant context bearing on credibility and motivation. The same testimony was also relevant to Cohen’s support cross-appeal. Although the cost was significant, the direction already excluded several days of evidence from other witnesses and permitted further reductions by agreement.
The Court also rejected Strauber’s argument that Cohen should initially bear the cost of transcripts needed for her cross-appeal. Under Rule 24(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the initial responsibility rested with Strauber as appellant. He was directed to confirm by October 30, 2026, that he had ordered the transcripts.
Key Takeaways
- A registrar’s discretionary decision settling appeal transcripts receives substantial deference and is not reconsidered afresh on review.
- A Charter freedom-of-religion claim may require trial evidence establishing sincerity, non-trivial interference, credibility, and factual context even when the appellant characterizes the appeal as raising legal questions.
- The appellant bears the initial obligation to produce transcripts necessary for the appeal record, including material needed to address a cross-appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties cannot avoid necessary transcript costs merely by framing an appeal as involving pure questions of law. Where constitutional claims depend on adjudicative facts, the Court must have a record sufficient to assess the claimant’s beliefs, the alleged interference, and the surrounding context.
It also confirms the registrar’s broad authority to create a coherent record serving both an appeal and cross-appeal, while limiting transcripts when that can be done without impairing the Court’s ability to decide the issues properly.