George Czutrin

Following a high-conflict separation, the parties proceeded to trial over custody and parenting arrangements for their young child after earlier attempts at mediation, arbitration, and consent agreements failed.

The court reviewed extensive evidence including an investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, communications between the parties, and the history of litigation.

The court found the parties incapable of effective communication and concluded that joint custody or divided decision‑making would not be in the child’s best interests under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The mother was found to be the more credible witness and her parenting decisions were determined to be child‑focused.

The court therefore ordered sole custody to the mother with a structured parenting schedule for the father and detailed provisions governing communication, decision‑making, and exchanges.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with a prior disclosure order in a family law proceeding.

The court found that the motion for contempt was improperly brought because it was not commenced using the required Form 31 and therefore the procedural requirements for contempt had not been met.

While the respondent had only substantially complied with the disclosure order after being served with the motion, the court declined to make a contempt finding.

Instead, the court directed the respondent to respond to outstanding disclosure requests within thirty days in accordance with the prior order and clarified further steps available if disclosure was not provided.

The motion for contempt was dismissed and other disclosure and financial issues were adjourned.

Appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice order made at a settlement conference in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The settlement conference judge removed the matter from trial assignment court and extended the timeline under Rule 33 of the Family Law Rules without notice, relying on settlement conference materials and discussions.

The appellate court held that settlement conference briefs and discussions are protected by Rules 17(23) and 17(24) and cannot form the basis for adjudicative orders absent consent or proper notice.

The judge erred in extending the statutory timeline based on settlement conference materials and without procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and any future request to extend timelines was directed to be heard by a different judge.

Following motions in an ongoing family law proceeding, the parties made competing claims for costs relating to disputes about court‑ordered payments and a request to release funds held in counsel’s trust account.

The moving party argued he had achieved success and sought full recovery of substantial legal costs.

The responding party sought her own costs or, alternatively, that the issue be reserved to the trial judge.

The court held that it was not in a position to determine credibility or ultimate success between the parties on the available record.

Exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Rules, the court reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge.

An appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice decision granting summary judgment in a child protection proceeding and making two children Crown wards.

The appellants argued that the motions judge erred in law by failing to follow the statutory pathway under the Child and Family Services Act and by not properly considering a parental plan involving support from a grandparent.

The appeal judge reviewed the record and admitted fresh evidence concerning the parent’s continued substance abuse and instability.

The court found that the motions judge applied the correct legal test, considered less disruptive alternatives, and properly evaluated the proposed family support plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship disposition upheld.

A family law motion addressed the interim handling of disputed section 7 expenses held in trust by the respondent’s counsel pending a scheduled trial concerning the termination of child support for an adult child.

The applicant intended to seek dismissal or stay of the respondent’s motion to change for alleged non-compliance with a prior court order requiring continued payment of child support and post‑secondary costs.

The court considered the potential prejudice to both parties, noting the possibility that the respondent had substantially overpaid child support and might be unable to recover any overpayment if the funds were released.

Finding the respondent’s proposed alternatives reasonable and fair, the court ordered that the disputed funds remain in counsel’s trust account pending the outcome of the trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,500, payable after judgment following the hearing.

The respondents in a family law proceeding brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an application alleging fraudulent conveyances and trust claims against a new spouse, brought to secure enforcement of spousal support arrears.

The applicant alleged that assets transferred to the new spouse, including real property and corporate shares, were held in trust for the support payor and were transferred to defeat recovery of indexed spousal support arrears under a 1999 consent judgment.

The court found the new civil action premature because a motion to change the spousal support order and determine arrears was already pending.

The court held that enforcement-related claims against the new spouse should await the determination of whether the payor remained liable for the arrears or whether the support order would be varied.

The action was therefore stayed pending the outcome of the motion to change.

Following multiple attendances in a family law proceeding concerning support and property division after a long marriage, the court addressed costs arising from motions primarily related to financial disclosure.

The applicant spouse had brought motions seeking disclosure, spousal support, and advances on equalization, arguing that the respondent had delayed providing necessary financial information, including business valuations and income analysis relating to corporate interests.

The court found the respondent had failed to provide timely and adequate disclosure, causing unnecessary delay and requiring the applicant to bring motions to compel compliance.

Although the applicant did not obtain the exact relief requested in earlier motions, the court concluded the motions were necessary and that the applicant was more successful overall.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order.

The respondent conceded entitlement to temporary spousal support but disputed the amount and brought a cross‑motion seeking sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and production of the applicant’s medical records.

The principal issue concerned the respondent’s income, which the applicant alleged was significantly higher than reported due to employment and trust income connected to a family business.

The court held that the respondent bore the onus of providing adequate disclosure regarding business performance, bonus calculations, and potential trust distributions.

Pending proper disclosure, the court ordered temporary spousal support of $12,000 per month based on the respondent’s last disclosed gross income of $431,693 and adjourned the motion for further evidence.

In a family proceeding joined with a related civil action, the responding spouse brought a motion seeking orders compelling the applicant spouse to answer refusals and satisfy undertakings arising from examinations for discovery.

The disputed questions concerned financial disclosure relating to a loan agreement for home renovations and the alleged ownership of shares in a start‑up pharmaceutical company through the applicant or a related corporation.

The court held that further financial disclosure concerning the applicant’s historical assets was not warranted beyond potentially accessible documents relied upon by the accountant, subject to cost reimbursement.

However, disclosure relating to corporate shareholdings and documents connected to the alleged share interest claim was found relevant and ordered to be produced.

Certain undertakings and refusals relating to the corporate issue were ordered satisfied within 30 days.

In a family law appeal concerning child support for an adult child with significant health issues, the respondent sought to raise a constitutional challenge to s. 31 of the Family Law Act for the first time on appeal.

The challenge alleged unequal treatment between children of unmarried parents under the Family Law Act and children of married parents under the Divorce Act.

The court considered the test governing whether new constitutional issues may be raised on appeal, including whether there was a sufficient evidentiary record, whether the issue had been omitted for tactical reasons, and whether injustice would result from refusing to hear it.

The court found that the issue was foreseeable, that a sufficient factual foundation existed, and that the delay was largely attributable to representation issues.

The respondent was therefore permitted to raise the Charter issue and the appeal was directed to proceed with further case management.

Following a family law motion relating largely to support and financial disclosure, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $14,774.19 and requested that a substantial portion be enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court found the applicant had been largely successful and that the respondent had failed to provide disclosure and comply with a prior consent order.

Although the respondent argued that no settlement offer had been made, that some disclosure had been provided voluntarily, and that the applicant was not entirely successful, the court held that the absence of an offer did not preclude full indemnity costs.

The court also questioned the necessity of two counsel and considered the tax implications of support-related costs under Rule 24.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 plus HST and disbursements.

The responding spouse sought to strike the applicant spouse’s family law application for failure to comply with a prior order requiring monthly undifferentiated payments and costs following a trial adjournment granted at the applicant’s request.

The applicant acknowledged the breach and proposed partial compliance through RRSP deregistration and payment from trust funds held by counsel, arguing financial hardship and business failure.

The court declined to reconsider the prior order or permit satisfaction of the payments from trust funds, noting insufficient evidence to justify revisiting the earlier ruling and ongoing credibility concerns.

Instead of immediately striking the application, the court adjourned the motion and ordered extensive financial disclosure, including business documentation, banking records, passport records, and updated financial statements.

The applicant was required in the interim to pay funds realized from the RRSP deregistration to the respondent’s counsel pending further determination.