Evgeniy Osipov

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside the registration of a German child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The German court had ordered him to pay child support after serving him by registered mail, which he did not pick up.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the respondent did not have proper notice of the foreign proceedings or a reasonable opportunity to be heard, given his modest means, inability to speak German, and the short 30-day response period.

The court set aside the registration of the order on this basis.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary week-about shared parenting schedule for the parties' six-year-old child during the summer months.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing for the continuation of the status quo of three weekends per month.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that a shared parenting schedule during the summer was in the child's best interests and consistent with the maximum contact principle, as it would not interfere with the child's school schedule and would reduce transitions.

The court declined to reduce the father's child support obligations for the two-month period.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior order for in-person supervised contact with his two children.

The respondent mother opposed, citing extreme distress and self-harm attempts by the older child when faced with the prospect of seeing the father.

The court declined to order police enforcement, finding it unwise given the child's distress.

Instead, the court ordered a structured plan involving the Office of the Children's Lawyer or the court-approved supervisors to inform the children of the supervision terms and ascertain their willingness to attend, with virtual contact ordered if they remain adamant against in-person visits.

The applicant father sought a contact order for his two children, aged 12 and 6, after a period of limited contact since separation.

The respondent mother raised concerns about family violence and COVID-19 risks, proposing supervised outdoor visits.

The court, considering the children's best interests and verified domestic violence risks, granted the father supervised indoor contact three out of four weekends, with supervision by the father's mother or sister, not the respondent.

The court also required the father to adhere to strict COVID-19 protocols, including weekly testing and maintaining a limited social bubble, and rejected the respondent's arguments for outdoor-only visits or her own supervision, citing the need for a more natural environment for the children and the inadequacy of the medical report regarding COVID vulnerability.

This ruling addresses parenting arrangements for two young children, Haylee (step-daughter to the applicant) and Jace (biological son of both parties).

The applicant sought custody of both children and unsupervised access, while the respondent sought custody of both, supervised access for the applicant, and no access for Haylee.

The court found both parties lacked credibility.

It denied the applicant's claim for Haylee, respecting the respondent's parental autonomy as the applicant failed to establish a "settled intention" to treat Haylee as his child or arbitrary imperilment of the relationship.

For Jace, the court awarded temporary custody to the respondent but granted the applicant a gradually increasing schedule of unsupervised access, finding it to be in Jace's best interests.

The applicant (father) sought an order for the return of the child after the respondent (mother) breached a temporary custody order by refusing to return the child following weekend access.

The respondent, facing criminal charges related to the applicant, filed extensive material and a cross-motion to change custody to her home.

The court found that the respondent deliberately disobeyed the court order without plausible justification and that her actions demonstrated she was willing to prioritize her own needs over those of the child.

The court maintained the existing arrangement whereby the child resides with the applicant and the respondent has weekend access, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion to find the Applicant Father in contempt of previous access and parenting orders, alleging breaches related to the use of a SCRAM bracelet for alcohol monitoring and failure to consult on major decisions or provide medical updates for their children.

The court found ambiguity in the interpretation of the access order concerning the SCRAM bracelet and supervision requirements.

Given the high standard of proof for contempt (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, the court dismissed the contempt motion.

It emphasized that simply reverting to old orders was not in the children's best interests due to the time elapsed and the need for further investigation into the Respondent Mother's Motion to Change and the Applicant Father's request for reintegration therapy.

The parties were directed to a settlement conference to explore options for resuming access and safeguards.