Alexei Goudimenko

This is a costs endorsement following motions where the court determined primary residence and decision-making responsibility for a child, and ordered the child's return to Ontario from Prince Edward Island.

The applicant mother sought costs against the respondent maternal grandmother and the respondent father.

The court found the mother was largely successful against the maternal grandmother and partially successful against the father.

While the maternal grandmother's conduct was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for a finding of bad faith.

The court awarded fixed costs to the mother against both respondents, taking into account their financial circumstances and allowing for payment over time.

This was an uncontested trial in a family law matter where the applicant husband sought orders regarding parenting, child support, sale of the matrimonial home, and costs.

The respondent wife failed to participate in the proceedings despite being served and ordered to do so.

The court granted the husband sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence for the younger child, imputed income to the wife for child support purposes, ordered the sale of the matrimonial home (denying the husband's request for a right of first refusal), and ordered the wife to pay substantial costs due to her non-compliance and bad faith conduct.

A divorce was also granted.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal, as well as leave to appeal an underlying order and costs order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought an order placing three children in extended society care, while the paternal grandfather sought custody.

The children had previously been removed from their adoptive mother (their paternal aunt) due to severe physical abuse and neglect.

They were temporarily placed with the grandfather, but were later brought into foster care due to his failure to meet their medical, dental, and educational needs, as well as his lack of insight into the abuse they suffered.

The court found that the grandfather's plan was inadequate to protect the children and meet their significant needs, which included trauma and developmental challenges.

The court ordered the children placed in extended society care with a view to adoption, granting the grandfather access at least once per month, with the children designated as access holders to prevent hindering adoption prospects.

This decision addresses the issue of access to a child, J.M., after a finding of need for protection and the mother's consent to an extended care order for the child.

The mother, M.M., sought frequent in-person access with a view to eventual return, while the Children's Aid Society of Toronto intended to place J.M. for adoption and proposed very limited or no face-to-face contact.

The court applied the "best interests" test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, considering the mother's untreated schizophrenia, inconsistent access history, and the child's need for permanency.

The court granted the mother non-face-to-face access via cards, letters, emails, and school reports, and denied access to the father, M.O.

The Applicant, Ekaterina Karmanova, and the Respondent, Zurab Gugushvili, were in a common-law relationship.

The Applicant sought spousal support, a constructive trust or resulting trust over a condominium solely titled in the Respondent's name, and general damages for alleged cruel conduct.

The court found that the parties cohabited for a sufficient period to trigger spousal support obligations and that a joint family venture existed regarding the condominium.

However, a proprietary interest in the condominium was denied, and a monetary remedy on a fee-for-service basis was awarded for the Applicant's contributions to condominium expenses.

General damages for alleged cruel conduct were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and mutual inappropriate behavior.

The Applicant was awarded modest transitional spousal support.

In a child protection trial, the court determined the mother's access to her child and whether a restraining order should be issued against her.

The mother suffered from severe, long-standing schizoaffective disorder, resulting in unpredictable violent outbursts and a finding of not criminally responsible for past assaults.

The court found that in-person access posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and was not in the child's best interests, ordering only indirect access via cards and letters subject to the grandmother's approval.

The society's request for a restraining order was dismissed because the society lacked jurisdiction as the applicant under the Children's Law Reform Act, the grandmother did not fear for the child's safety, and the mother lacked the moral blameworthiness required for a penal restraining order.

A mother sought leave to bring a status review application to regain custody of two children (ages 6 and 4) who were made Crown wards without access in November 2015 following a 12-day trial.

The children had been in continuous foster care for nearly four years.

The mother claimed significant personal changes including separation from the father, completion of parenting courses, psychological assessment showing insight, and improved independence.

However, the court found the mother's credibility was severely compromised by her submission of a fraudulent airline ticket to deny violating the no-access order, her continued involvement with the father despite claims of separation, and her pattern of deception consistent with her trial conduct.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the mother had not established a prima facie case for relief and remained ungovernable.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and an order for crown wardship.

The mother left two children unsupervised for multiple days while she traveled to Montreal to be with her terminally ill husband.

The youngest child was found alone in a park without knowledge of his address or last name.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to abandonment, risk of emotional harm from the mother's untreated mental health issues including paranoid delusions, and risk of physical harm from inadequate supervision and neglect of educational needs.

The mother refused mental health assessment and showed no insight into her conduct.

The court ordered all three children to be made crown wards with access to the mother and to each other in the discretion of the society.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that an eleven-year-old child was in need of protection and should be placed in the care of the father under a six-month supervision order with conditions regarding access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the child had suffered physical and emotional harm due to ongoing parental conflict and that the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or change to warrant a different disposition.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on the issues of protection, disposition, or access.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application seeking a finding that two young children (D.L., age 3, and A.L., age 2) were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards for adoption purposes.

The children had been in care since May 2014.

The parents opposed the application, seeking dismissal and return of the children, or alternatively, return under a supervision order.

The court found that the children were in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act due to: (1) missed critical medical appointments for a child with severe developmental disabilities; (2) exposure to domestic violence between the parents; (3) the mother's inability to protect the children from the father's assaults; (4) both parents' dismissive attitudes toward the Canadian medical system; and (5) the father's demonstrated pattern of breaching court orders and his hostile, uncooperative attitude toward medical professionals.

The court rejected both a supervision order with both parents and a supervision order with the mother alone, finding that neither arrangement would adequately protect the children given their complex medical needs and the parents' lack of insight and cooperation.

The court made an order for Crown wardship with no access to the parents.

The court determined costs following competing motions concerning enforcement of minutes of settlement in a family law dispute.

The respondent initially denied the existence of a binding settlement and brought a cross‑motion seeking various interim remedies but ultimately consented to judgment based on handwritten minutes of settlement previously executed by all parties.

The court found that the respondent’s affidavit evidence denying the agreement was inconsistent with her later position and constituted unreasonable litigation conduct that necessitated extensive motion materials and preparation.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing costs awards, the court held that the moving party had been entirely successful and was entitled to costs.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 all-inclusive and ordered payable from settlement funds held in trust.

The appellant wife appealed a temporary order requiring her to advance $100,000 to the respondent husband for interim disbursements and legal fees.

The wife argued that the motions judge erred in his discretion and that there was a lack of procedural fairness because the notice of motion did not specifically request interim disbursements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and that the motions judge appropriately exercised his discretion given the serious credibility issues and the need for documentary disclosure.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice decision declining jurisdiction over custody and support issues concerning a child residing with the father in British Columbia.

The lower court held the child was habitually resident in British Columbia due to the mother’s consent and acquiescence to the child’s relocation.

The Superior Court found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, concluding that the mother’s consent for the child’s travel was conditional and time-limited and that she did not acquiesce to the child’s continued residence outside Ontario.

The court held that the child remained habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was directed to proceed in the Ontario Court of Justice on an urgent basis.