George Czutrin

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.

In a family law proceeding between unmarried cohabiting parties with two children, the respondent sought disclosure relating to the applicant’s assets and financial circumstances.

The respondent advanced a claim of unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture and requested valuation reports for corporate interests, stock options, and other assets, as well as a completed net family property statement to assess wealth accumulated during cohabitation.

The court held that meaningful disclosure was necessary to evaluate the alleged joint family venture and ordered the applicant to obtain valuations and complete the financial disclosure.

The court relied on the principles from Kerr v. Baranow concerning the sharing of wealth created during cohabitation.

Directions were also given regarding disclosure timelines, questioning, and further case management prior to settlement conference.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection order granting Crown wardship without access following summary judgment under the Child and Family Services Act.

She argued the motions judge failed to review video evidence of access visits and erred in not extending statutory timelines to permit reunification efforts.

The appeal judge reviewed the same evidentiary record and concluded that even accepting the video evidence as favourable to the mother, it did not address her ability to resume parenting within the statutory timelines.

The court found no palpable and overriding error, no procedural unfairness, and no misapplication of the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship order remained in place.

The court addressed procedural confusion surrounding a motion to change child support arising from a separation agreement filed with the Ontario Court of Justice.

The matter had been transferred between courts due to uncertainty about jurisdiction, particularly whether a prior Superior Court order fixing arrears constituted a support order requiring variation in the Superior Court.

The court found the record incomplete and unclear as to whether the motion to change stemmed from the filed domestic contract or from the prior Superior Court order.

Given the uncertainty, the court directed that the complete files from the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court be assembled and that a case conference be scheduled to determine jurisdiction and assist the parties in resolving the issues.

Additional financial disclosure was ordered to ensure the matter could proceed without further delay.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to vacate an existing restraining order and no-contact provisions preventing him from contacting the mother and the children.

The orders had been in place since 2008 and made final in 2009 following earlier litigation between the parties.

The father relied primarily on his recent acquittal on criminal charges relating to threats against the mother as justification for lifting the order.

The court held that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and provided no plan regarding contact with the children, nor the required parenting affidavit.

In the absence of a clear proposal addressing the children’s safety and best interests, the court declined to terminate the restraining order and dismissed the motion.

In a family law motion, the applicant sought retroactive spousal support and interim funding for legal fees and expert disbursements to review the respondent’s financial expert reports.

The court considered evidence of the respondent’s significant income and complex business interests, as well as the applicant’s limited financial resources.

Applying the principles governing interim disbursement orders under rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court emphasized the need to level the playing field where one party controls financial information and resources.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,500 per month commencing July 1, 2012 and directed the respondent to pay all section 7 expenses for the children.

The court also ordered an advance of $75,000 for the applicant’s legal fees and expert costs to permit proper testing of the respondent’s financial evidence.

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate or vary child support obligations established by prior consent orders, arguing that the parties’ adult child was no longer a dependent after changing schools, residing in Toronto for a period, and receiving student loans and grants.

The court found that the child remained a dependent due to documented learning disabilities and continued pursuit of a first undergraduate degree with a reduced course load.

The temporary change in residence and attendance at another institution did not constitute a change in circumstances warranting termination or reduction of support during the five‑year period contemplated by the consent order.

The court held the father to his contractual commitment to pay $5,000 per month child support and post‑secondary expenses for the agreed five‑year period.

For the sixth and final year of studies, support was recalculated based on the father’s income and set at $2,921 per month until completion of the degree.

In a child protection matter under the Child and Family Services Act, the father sought costs related to two appeals to the Superior Court of Justice arising from procedural orders made by an Ontario Court of Justice judge during settlement conferences.

The first appeal had been allowed on procedural fairness grounds after the settlement conference judge extended trial timelines without notice or consent.

A second appeal later became moot after the underlying protection application was dismissed and interim orders were varied.

The court held that, given the narrow basis of the earlier appeal decision and the ultimate dismissal of the protection application by another judge who had a full evidentiary record, it was inappropriate to assess the parties’ conduct for costs purposes.

Exercising its discretion, the court declined to award costs on either appeal.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2006 child support order that imputed $50,000 income to him, seeking a reduction of support, elimination of arrears, and changes to parenting arrangements.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of enforcement proceedings, repeated failures to attend hearings, and incomplete financial disclosure by the moving party.

The court rejected the father's late allegation that he had not been served with the original application and found the evidence regarding his income unreliable.

Concluding that the father had the capacity to earn at least $35,000 annually, the court varied support prospectively only from January 1, 2011 while making limited adjustments to arrears related to historic daycare expenses.

The court ordered recalculation of arrears, ongoing monthly support of $303, and additional payments toward arrears.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion seeking urgent relief and exemption from the requirement for a case conference prior to bringing a motion.

The court determined that the motion lacked urgency and directed that the matter proceed through a case conference, reserving the issue of costs to be determined on written submissions.

During the costs process, the applicant sent an unsolicited letter to the judge alleging that opposing counsel had withheld information and misled the court regarding urgency.

The court held that correspondence to a judge about a pending matter is inappropriate and declined to entertain the allegations through such means.

The court directed that if the applicant wished to pursue the issue he must do so through proper procedural channels before the court determines costs.

The applicant father sought to sever the granting of a divorce from unresolved corollary issues, including parenting and support.

The court reviewed the procedural history, including inconsistent evidence regarding prior assault allegations, the absence of a responding answer, and unsuccessful attempts to obtain assistance from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

Evidence from a child protection agency did not clarify parenting circumstances or criminal history concerns.

The court held it could not be satisfied that reasonable arrangements had been made for the support of the children as required under s. 11(b) of the Divorce Act.

In the absence of sufficient information regarding parenting, support, and the children’s best interests, the request to sever the divorce from corollary issues could not be granted.

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs arising from earlier rulings relating primarily to disclosure disputes.

The applicant had brought motions alleging non-compliance with prior disclosure orders and seeking a finding of contempt, which was not granted, though the court found the respondent had not fully complied in a timely manner.

The court considered the conduct of both parties, including the respondent’s incomplete disclosure and the applicant’s counsel’s refusal to accept earlier delivery of documents that might have avoided the motion.

Applying Family Law Rule 24 and the objectives of Rule 2, the court fixed costs at $35,000 but ordered only $10,000 payable immediately, leaving the balance to the trial judge or to be addressed on a future motion concerning fees or unresolved disclosure.

In a protracted family law proceeding involving disputes over alleged oral and written agreements made before and during the marriage, the applicant brought a motion seeking to revisit a prior ruling on the scope of questioning and pre‑trial disclosure.

The respondent alleged that agreements relating to renovation funding and a promissory note were invalid due to breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, and misrepresentation arising from the applicant’s failure to disclose an extramarital relationship.

The court held that limited additional questioning concerning the applicant’s extramarital relationships was appropriate and ordered the applicant to re‑attend for up to one hour to answer previously refused questions.

The court also confirmed the respondent’s entitlement to detailed accounting supporting the applicant’s financial claim and permitted inquiries relating to the value of an alleged 3% interest in a company involving the added party.

In a family law proceeding involving equalization and support issues, the responding spouse sought an advance on the equalization payment or interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The parties had previously consented to an order requiring disclosure, retaining a joint income analysis expert, and permitting the respondent to encumber the matrimonial home for certain legal and accounting costs.

The court reviewed the existing consent order and a subsequent disclosure order and concluded that the issues of interim disbursements and advances had already been adequately addressed.

No additional relief was granted, and the matter was left to proceed with completion of expert reports and continued case management.

In a family law proceeding scheduled for imminent trial, the responding party sought leave to bring a late motion for production and forensic examination of a corporation’s original minute book and corporate tax returns to challenge the moving party’s asserted ownership interests.

The court found the disclosure requests related to issues long known to the parties and held the motion could and should have been brought months earlier.

Given the proximity of trial and the absence of any identified expert or feasible expert process under the Rules, the court declined to grant the requested relief.

Instead, the court ordered limited pre-trial inspection of the corporate minute book and original accounting records to streamline the upcoming trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party to the motion.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent spouse brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant spouse to place him on her extended health and dental plan so he could obtain psychological counselling.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that the moving party was subject to prior court orders prohibiting further motions until compliance with outstanding temporary orders, including substantial unpaid costs, and that he remained in arrears.

The court also noted that the requested relief was incidental to a support claim where no support order had been made or requested, and that the benefits plan likely did not permit the addition of a separated spouse.

The court concluded the claim failed on multiple grounds and dismissed the motion.

The applicant brought motions in a family law proceeding seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders and to strike the respondent’s Answer for persistent disclosure failures.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of non-compliance with disclosure obligations, unpaid support, and failure to provide proof of compliance with prior orders regarding debts and financial disclosure.

While declining to immediately strike the Answer or make a contempt finding, the court granted an adjournment on strict conditions requiring proof of discharged loans, production of personal and corporate tax returns, updated financial disclosure, and payment toward support arrears.

The court warned that failure to comply with any of the terms could permit the applicant to move without notice to strike the respondent’s Answer.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought an adjournment of the respondent’s motion to reduce a temporary spousal support order of $12,000 per month.

The respondent also sought relief including recharacterizing prior payments for tax purposes, disclosure orders, and access to the matrimonial home for appraisal.

The court determined that the issues, particularly the respondent’s income and competing expert evidence, required a longer motion and that questioning and expert review should occur first.

The motion was adjourned and procedural directions were ordered regarding disclosure, expert meetings, and questioning timelines.

Costs decision following a family law motion seeking to compel disclosure and other relief relating to financial statements and property issues potentially involving third parties.

The court found the moving party’s motion to compel disclosure was largely premature, unnecessary, and overreaching because disclosure timelines had not been fixed, pleadings were incomplete, and some disclosure required cooperation from non-parties.

The court also noted the moving party accepted the responding party’s valuation date during the motion.

Finding that the responding party attempted to avoid the motion and was the successful party, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

In a family law proceeding involving competing motions to change a prior consent order, the applicant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent’s motion to change materials that disclosed information from a parenting coordination process.

Although the original court order contemplated an open parenting coordination process, the parties subsequently agreed with the parenting coordinator to conduct the process on a closed basis.

The respondent argued that disclosure was permissible because the closed process conflicted with the prior order.

The court held that parenting coordination derives its authority from the parties’ consent and constitutes a form of secondary arbitration under the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act.

Because the parties consented to a closed process, the respondent could not unilaterally disclose information arising from it, and the impugned portions of the materials were struck with costs.