Carolina Flora Patricia Paterson

The court determined the final parenting time and decision-making responsibility for the child of Yevgen Mokhov and Nataliya Ratayeva.

The court ordered a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule during the school year and a week-about schedule in the summer, finding this arrangement in the best interests of the child.

The court also allocated final decision-making responsibility over health, religion, and significant extracurricular activities to the father, and over education to the mother, each after consultation with the other parent.

The decision was based on a detailed review of the statutory best interests factors and the evidence of both parties and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The applicant wife sought extensive financial disclosure and questioning of the respondent husband's father, Marcel Aitoro (a non-party), regarding several companies and properties.

The wife alleged significant intertwining of business and personal financial affairs between the husband and Marcel, suggesting assets were being shielded and income diverted.

Marcel and the husband opposed, citing privacy and proportionality.

The court dismissed a preliminary objection by the husband regarding the wife's affidavit.

Applying Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), and considering the importance of disclosure in family law, the court ordered Marcel to provide specific financial disclosure related to FSC (a company with intertwined business activities with the husband), redacted ledgers from Assissi (Marcel's holding company) concerning realty and husband's expenses, and redacted credit card statements used by the husband.

Questioning of Marcel was reserved pending compliance with the disclosure order.

The appellant appealed from trial decisions determining unresolved issues in a family law matter, including spousal support duration and quantum, child and spousal support arrears, equalization of post-valuation-day increases in corporate shares, disposition of a recreational property, and costs.

The trial judge determined the appellant's income for support purposes by excluding losses from a corporation used to fund his personal lifestyle, assessed the value of corporate shares considering personal benefits provided by the corporation, ordered payment for a recreational property, and awarded substantial costs to the respondent based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct and inadequate disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld all findings.