George Czutrin

The father appealed a summary judgment decision that limited his access to his daughter, N.B., to written contact, subject to the child's wishes for further contact.

The father argued that the summary judgment judge improperly considered hearsay evidence and failed to apply principles of justice and fairness.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The court emphasized that the summary judgment judge's decision was child-focused, based on N.B.'s expressed fears and wishes, and that the father had not sought to cross-examine deponents or introduce fresh evidence at the appropriate time.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support retroactive to the parties’ separation.

The court found that the respondent’s true income for support purposes could not be determined with certainty due to incomplete disclosure and competing assumptions in expert financial analysis.

Pending further disclosure, questioning, and expert reports, the court made an interim determination using the respondent’s expert’s income estimate of $1,050,703.

Temporary child support of $12,500 per month and spousal support of $26,000 per month were ordered, along with ongoing payment of certain family expenses.

The support orders were expressly subject to reconsideration once full financial disclosure and expert evidence were completed.

A mother appealed a Crown wardship and no-access order made following a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appeal challenged the trial judge’s findings regarding kinship placement with the maternal grandmother and alleged errors in weighing evidence, assessing the grandmother’s plan, and considering expert psychological evidence.

The court held that the trial judge applied the correct statutory framework under the CFSA, properly considered kinship placement, and made factual findings supported by the evidence.

The appellant failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error or an error of law.

Fresh evidence regarding the grandmother’s post‑trial efforts did not justify disturbing the disposition given the child’s need for stability and permanency.

A father appealed a final custody order granted to the mother at a case conference in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The conference judge had issued a final order for sole custody without a motion, trial, or full evidentiary record.

The Superior Court held that making contested final substantive orders at a case conference, absent consent and without procedural safeguards such as affidavit evidence and notice, was inconsistent with the Family Law Rules and principles of procedural fairness.

The court emphasized that conferences are intended to facilitate settlement and case management, not to determine final rights where the issues are disputed.

The final custody order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for further proceedings.

Following a family law motion, the respondent mother sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 and the general costs principles under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court compared the parties’ positions and the offer and found that the mother had been successful and that her offer justified full indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $11,000.

Due to the father’s financial circumstances and ongoing support obligations, the costs were ordered to be secured against his interest in the matrimonial home, with additional restrictions preventing him from depleting assets disclosed in his financial statement.

Interim family law motion addressing parenting schedule and child support following separation.

The father sought maximum contact with the parties’ three children, but the court found equal parenting time unrealistic due to the children’s ages, school locations, and the distance between the parents’ residences after the father relocated.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered providing the father alternating weekends, mid‑week access, and additional overnight time with the youngest child.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and ordered the father to pay table child support while both parties shared certain section 7 expenses.

Following extensive non-compliance with court-ordered financial disclosure in a family law proceeding, the respondent’s Answer was struck.

The court proceeded with an uncontested hearing on issues of child and spousal support after giving the respondent multiple opportunities to comply with disclosure obligations and produce expert income analysis.

Despite repeated orders, the respondent failed to provide tax returns, financial statements, or other required documentation.

The court relied on the applicant’s evidence and imposed final support-related orders while permitting limited future reconsideration only if the respondent first satisfied outstanding costs and disclosure obligations.

The court addressed costs arising from prior family law endorsements ordering disclosure relating to the respondent’s income and business interests for purposes of spousal support and equalization.

The applicant successfully obtained disclosure from the respondent and a related corporation concerning valuation and financial records.

The court held that the disclosure should not have been resisted and emphasized the importance of full financial disclosure in family proceedings.

Applying the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial costs to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 payable forthwith, jointly and severally by the respondent and the non-party corporation.

Following settlement of a family law dispute through comprehensive minutes of settlement, the court was asked to determine entitlement and quantum of costs.

The court reviewed the parties’ settlement offers, expert reports, litigation conduct, and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent spouse had acted in person for part of the proceeding but incurred substantial legal and expert costs earlier in the litigation.

The court found that the applicant spouse had been unreasonable in negotiations, caused delay, and that the final settlement was closer to the respondent’s positions.

The respondent was therefore entitled to substantial costs, including portions of expert fees, transcript expenses, arbitration-related costs, and partial indemnity for legal fees.

This decision addressed costs following a prior endorsement determining that the respondent mother had not complied with the terms of a consent order requiring her to permanently relocate within a specified distance of the applicant father to receive relocation payments and select the child’s school.

After a two‑day hearing with oral evidence, the court found the mother had not permanently relocated and had attempted to mislead the father, resulting in the father being entirely successful on the substantive issues.

The father sought costs of approximately $39,637.77.

Applying the factors under Family Law Rule 24(11), including proportionality, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, and the hours expended, the court concluded that the claimed amount was excessive despite counsel’s thorough work.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 payable by the mother, with repayment structured through monthly set‑off against child support.

In a family law proceeding concerning child and spousal support, the applicant brought a motion to compel financial disclosure and to strike the respondent’s motion to change an existing support order that had incorporated a prior arbitral award imputing significant income to the respondent.

The respondent asserted a substantially lower income and sought retroactive variation of support, while the applicant alleged the respondent’s income remained significantly higher and sought increased support.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure, expert reports, and arrears of support.

Rather than striking the motion to change, the court directed compliance with disclosure obligations, ordered payment of arrears, scheduled further case management steps, and set the matter down for trial.

A family law motion concerning financial disclosure and interim financial issues between separating spouses.

The court addressed ongoing disclosure disputes related to the respondent’s income, assets, and financial transactions, including the transfer of $50,000 shortly after separation.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $15,000 previously ordered, directed further banking disclosure relating to a safety deposit box, and permitted the potential sale of a condominium property subject to conditions, with sale proceeds to be held in trust or paid into court pending further order.

The decision emphasized the importance of complete financial disclosure to permit expert valuation and facilitate settlement or trial.

The applicant spouse brought a motion under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules seeking disclosure of financial records from a non‑party corporation in which the respondent spouse held a 22% interest.

The disclosure was sought to permit the applicant’s expert business valuator to assess the respondent’s corporate interest, determine the accuracy of his net family property, and evaluate his income for equalization and spousal support purposes.

The respondent and the non‑party corporation opposed the request, arguing the disclosure was unnecessary and aimed at challenging the respondent’s credibility.

The court held that the requested corporate and banking records were relevant, reasonable, and necessary for a proper valuation of the respondent’s interest and that it would be unfair to proceed without them.

The court ordered the non‑party corporation to provide access to the requested documentation and required the respondent to pay an interim disbursement of $15,000 to fund the expert’s work.

The mother brought a motion seeking custody of one child and supervised access for the father, while accepting on a temporary basis that the other child would remain in the father’s custody.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer supported the motion and presented evidence regarding the children’s views and the younger child’s educational and developmental needs.

The court found that the father had failed to comply with prior orders and had not supported the children’s relationship with their mother, contributing to the breakdown of the parenting arrangement.

Concluding that further delay would undermine the children’s relationship with the mother and be contrary to their best interests, the court granted the relief sought.

Orders were made transferring custody of the younger child to the mother, providing supervised access to the father, and establishing contact between the siblings.

Costs decision following a family law motion concerning temporary custody, parenting schedule, and interim child and spousal support.

The moving party sought costs after obtaining disclosure orders, an interim parenting schedule, and interim support.

The court found the responding party acted unreasonably by failing for years to file an answer or financial statement, ignoring disclosure requests, and unilaterally reducing support payments.

The court emphasized the obligation under the Family Law Rules to make timely disclosure and promote the primary objective of resolving cases justly and efficiently.

The moving party was found to be the more reasonable litigant and entitled to costs.

Following an urgent family law motion permitting the sale of the matrimonial home without the respondent spouse’s consent, the successful applicant sought full recovery costs.

The respondent argued that costs should either not be awarded or be reserved to the trial judge.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules there is a presumption that the successful party receives costs at each step of the proceeding.

Deferring costs to trial was inappropriate where the motion had been decided and the applicant had succeeded.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 payable by the respondent, subject to potential reconsideration at trial if bad faith were later established.

In a family law proceeding involving child and spousal support, the court addressed the extent of participation permitted to a respondent whose Answer had been struck for repeated non‑compliance with disclosure orders.

The respondent had failed for an extended period to provide adequate financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and opportunities to comply.

The court balanced the Family Law Rules objective of dealing with cases justly against the need to deter parties from ignoring court orders and imposing unnecessary costs on the opposing party.

The court limited the respondent’s role at the upcoming uncontested hearing, permitting only written submissions and limited documentary disclosure from third parties, while prohibiting other forms of participation such as cross‑examination.

The applicant was permitted to call the respondent for cross‑examination if she chose.

The parties sought enforcement of a consent order incorporating Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent mother to permanently relocate within 30 km of the applicant father’s residence by January 1, 2013 in order to choose the child’s school and receive relocation payments.

The dispute concerned whether the respondent had permanently relocated in compliance with the settlement terms.

After hearing oral evidence due to credibility issues, the court found the respondent had not acted in good faith and had not established a permanent residence within the meaning of the agreement, including cancelling a condominium purchase and instead renting a temporary room while proposing further moves.

The court concluded the respondent failed to comply with the settlement and consent order.

Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to relocation payments or to choose the child’s school, and the child was to remain in the current school.

Following an urgent family law motion granting the wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs on the basis that the respondent acted in bad faith by returning to the home immediately after being acquitted of criminal charges, knowing the applicant was bound by an undertaking restricting proximity and communication.

The court reviewed the surrounding circumstances and prior findings that the respondent’s actions demonstrated poor judgment and created an urgent situation requiring court intervention.

Applying Rule 24(1)(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.

The parties returned to court following a prior parenting judgment to determine whether the father’s parenting time met the 40 percent threshold for shared custody under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court reviewed jurisprudence on calculating parenting time and concluded that where a parenting order sets precise start and end times, access should be calculated in hours rather than days to avoid inaccurately deeming parenting time.

Applying the clarified parenting schedule and accounting for holidays, school time, and vacation allocations, the court determined that the father exercised approximately 32.6 percent of parenting time in 2013 and would not reach 40 percent even with potential adjustments.

As the threshold for shared custody was not met, child support was to be determined under s. 3 of the Guidelines.

The father was ordered to pay table child support of $919 per month retroactive to September 1, 2012, with section 7 daycare expenses recognized.