Strawson v. Strawson 2024 ABCA 126— The difficulties of appealing a binding JDR

Blog Post

In Strawson v. Strawson 2024 ABCA 126, an appeal of a  binding JDR decision was denied by the court. The appeal had challenged the jurisdiction of the JDR judge to issue reasons clarifying or modifying a previously issued order that was intended to be final.

The judge issued an order resolving certain issues at the conclusion of the parties' JDR proceedings, but stated he was unable to render decisions on others in the absence of additional information. The judge issued a letter containing his directive "represents my decision regarding the conclusion of the binding JDR in this matter" after receiving the additional materials from the parties. As an additional measure, he assessed the mother a reduced income equivalent to that which had been factored into the interim support calculation and ruled that neither party owed "retroactive support."

Due to the parties' inability to reach a consensus regarding the letter decision's interpretation, a subsequent appearance before the JDR judge was required. He recognized:

"In hindsight as I read the letter ... after receiving the correspondence from counsel, it certainly could have been more clear ... obviously as I read it now, there were some ambiguities."

Additionally, he noted that, as stipulated in the JDR agreement, neither party had requested clarification within the two-week period following the conclusion of the JDR. However, he subsequently issued an additional order that provided clarification on the letter's decision and explicitly stated that by directing "no retroactive support," he had intended to erase any purported arrears owed by the mother.

The court determined that the JDR judge's elucidation of the letter decision did not exceed his authority, noting that although a JDR process may be attached to the court's regular procedures, it is distinct and the judge has broad discretion regarding how to conduct the session. The court noted that the JDR judge's clarification of his initial intent was not objectionable in light of the ambiguities in the letter decision. In addition, Rule 4.21, which prohibits the JDR judge from participating in any subsequent trial or application of the action, did not apply in this case because the hearing to clarify the letter decision was an extension of the JDR and not a subsequent trial or application.

With regard to the arrears, the court determined that there was insufficient cause to vacate the judgment, citing the unique characteristics of the JDR process:

"The JDR judge is not obliged to give “reasons for decision” beyond stating his or her opinion. The JDR judge might not discretely set out his or her opinion about disputed facts, and even if there were such factual findings there is no evidentiary record against which the Court of Appeal could review them. There is no appeal as of right from the resulting consent judgment. The consent judgment cannot be challenged simply because the outcome is perceived by one party to be unfair or unbalanced, or because the JDR judge viewed the evidence and the position of the parties one way as opposed to another. The focus of a JDR judge is on a “fair and just settlement”, obviously consistent with the facts and the law, but there is no assurance, or necessarily any expectation, that the result of a binding JDR will mirror the result that would be obtained at a trial."

Litigants considering using a JDR to resolve their matters should be mindful of the restrictions on appealing binding JDRs.

For more information about JDRs or to retain a lawyer with JDR experience, feel free to Contact Us.