Diana Vasilescu

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties’ two children to Montreal on a temporary basis prior to trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the best interests of the children required maintaining stability and continuity in Toronto until a full trial could be held, especially given the need for reunification therapy and a pending parenting assessment.

The court also addressed several procedural motions, including the admissibility of affidavits, hearsay, and surreptitious recordings.

The applicant sought child and spousal support, arguing the respondent's income should be imputed to $140,000 despite his receipt of ODSP benefits.

She also sought an equalization payment, alleging the respondent hid assets including silver bars, equipment, and cars, and claimed an interest in a property owned by the respondent's parents.

The court found the respondent was unable to work due to physical and mental health conditions and fixed his income at his ODSP amount, resulting in no support payable.

The court dismissed the equalization claims, finding the applicant failed to prove the existence of the hidden assets and could not assert a trust claim against the respondent's parents for equalization purposes.

The applicant father brought a motion to resume his parenting time after it was suspended due to a series of unverified physical and sexual abuse allegations orchestrated by the respondent mother and her new partner.

The mother brought a cross-motion to suspend the father's parenting time and for a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the mother's lack of insight, her partner's concerning criminal and mental health history, and the failure of child welfare agencies to adequately intervene.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion, ordered the resumption of the father's parenting time on a supervised basis, and directed the involvement of the children's aid society to support the family's reunification.

The applicant sought temporary orders for imputation of income, child support, and spousal support, while the respondent brought a cross-motion for increased parenting time.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 per year to the respondent, ordered interim child support of $915 per month, and dismissed the applicant's claim for interim spousal support due to disputed facts.

The respondent's request for increased overnight parenting time was granted, as it was deemed in the children's best interests.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt for failing to sign an assessor's retainer, prohibiting him from filing further motions without leave, granting the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility, and delegating treatment authority for their child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and the grant of sole decision-making authority, finding the father's attempts to modify the retainer were not minor and that the mother's authority was justified by the father's non-compliance.

However, the court found the prohibition on filing further motions without leave was an overreach, as the father was not a vexatious litigant and such a term was not supported by the record, especially given potential future enforcement issues regarding parenting time.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The applicant father sought leave to bring a motion to change a final custody and access order that prohibited him from having access to his two youngest children and from coming within 100 meters of their residence, school, or daycare.

The father argued that his criminal proceedings had ended and he had completed an anger management course.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish either an arguable case of material change in circumstances or that allowing the motion would not constitute an abuse of process.

The father continued to engage in the conduct that formed the basis of the original order, including posting derogatory comments about the mother on social media, breaching multiple court orders, and displaying hostile and aggressive behavior in court.

The Applicant sought a temporary parenting order for increased unsupervised access to his three-year-old son, Rudi, which had been limited by the Respondent due to COVID-19 concerns and the vulnerability of her co-resident parents.

The court, considering the child's best interests, the evolving public health context, and previous judicial endorsements, granted the Applicant's motion for increased parenting time and unsupervised visits, emphasizing that the child's need for parental contact outweighed the Respondent's parents' objections, which were deemed rooted in mistrust rather than evidence-based health concerns.

The appellant father appealed an order denying his 14B motion for leave to commence a motion to change a custody order, which was denied by the lower court due to outstanding costs orders and his failure to appeal a prior order prohibiting further proceedings until costs were paid.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's decision.

The court distinguished the case from Rego v. Santos, emphasizing that the lower court had properly considered the motion, the outstanding costs were not "crushing," the appellant had not been forthright in his litigation history, and had not demonstrated a genuine desire to actively participate in proceedings.

The court addressed two motions concerning jurisdiction over custody and access of two children.

The applicant father initiated divorce proceedings in Ontario, claiming custody, while the respondent mother initiated parallel proceedings in Québec and disputed Ontario's jurisdiction.

The central issue was whether the children were habitually resident in Ontario, specifically whether the mother had agreed to a permanent change in residency or if it was time-limited.

The court found that the mother had knowingly agreed to the children residing with the father in Ontario without a time-limited condition, and her subsequent unilateral assertions of a temporary arrangement were not acknowledged or agreed to by the father.

Consequently, the court declared Ontario to be the children's habitual residence and assumed jurisdiction.