Aristoteli Lebedev

This trial addressed whether a temporary restraining order against the respondent, Mr. Visinoiu, should be made permanent under the Family Law Act and Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant, Ms. Grosu, alleged a history of physical and verbal abuse and expressed fear for her safety.

The respondent acknowledged one incident of assault but denied others and highlighted his compliance with previous court orders (bail, peace bond, temporary restraining order) and continued unsupervised parenting time with their daughter.

The court applied the objective and subjective test for restraining orders, balancing the applicant's fear against the respondent's compliance and the passage of time since the last incident.

The court found the respondent less credible but ultimately dismissed the application for a permanent restraining order, vacating the temporary order.

The court also declined to vary a previous parenting order.

The applicant mother sought to impute the respondent father's income for child support purposes.

The father, a self-employed landscaper, failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure, admitted to earning cash income, and had not filed corporate tax returns.

The court drew an adverse inference, imputed his base income at $70,000 based on lifestyle and business revenue, and applied a gross-up for tax avoidance, resulting in an imputed income of $77,998.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support, arrears, and $10,000 in costs, enforceable as support.

Trial to determine appropriate access schedule and child support obligation for a child born to unmarried parents who never cohabited.

The mother sought sole custody, limited access for the father (three days per week with no overnights), and retroactive child support from birth.

The father sought joint custody and shared parenting.

The court found the mother has been the primary caregiver since birth.

The father engaged in serious verbal and emotional abuse toward the mother, exposed the child to parental conflict, demonstrated poor judgment, and vindictive behavior.

The court rejected the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation for shared parenting, finding it unsupported by the investigator's own findings.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with regular overnight access to the father, and ordered retroactive child support from November 2015 with prospective support based on the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant sought costs arising from a temporary motion and cross-motion concerning parenting arrangements and child support.

The applicant sought $9,288.40 on a partial indemnity basis to the date of her offer to settle and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.

The respondent opposed the costs award and proposed $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis with divided success.

The court found the applicant was largely successful on parenting issues, that her offer to settle was reasonable and severable, and that the respondent's behaviour was unreasonable, particularly his pre-litigation conduct and secret recordings.

The court awarded the full amount requested.

Motion and cross-motion regarding parenting arrangements for a child born in 2013 from a brief casual relationship.

The respondent sought temporary joint custody with primary residence and specified access.

The applicant sought sole custody with primary residence and specified access.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding that joint custody was not workable due to lack of communication and cooperation between the parties, and that the respondent had engaged in parental alienation and manipulation of the child.

The court also addressed evidentiary issues regarding secretly recorded conversations and child statements, and declined to order retroactive child support on a temporary basis.

The father brought a motion to change a final order regarding access to the parties' child, arguing that the child's commencement of school drastically reduced his access time.

The mother sought a variation for child support and contribution to special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances for both access and support.

The court ordered a revised access schedule granting the father more frequent access during the school year and extended summer access.

The court also imputed income to the father at minimum wage, finding him intentionally unemployed, and ordered him to pay child support and share special expenses equally, with a deduction for his increased transportation costs.