George Czutrin

The applicant sought leave to appeal a family law arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by finding that child support for his son was 'suspended' rather than 'terminated' during a gap year before university.

The applicant claimed that a termination of child support would have triggered a de novo review of spousal support under the parties' divorce order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator made no error of law and correctly determined that the gap year did not terminate the child support obligation, thereby not triggering the spousal support review.

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 respondent mother brought a motion for financial disclosure from the applicant father and non-party corporations to determine the father's income for child support purposes.

The father, who is self-employed through a numbered company that owns 50% of another corporation, opposed the motion along with the non-party co-owner, arguing the request was disproportionate and sought confidential information.

The court granted the motion, ordering extensive corporate and personal financial disclosure, finding it necessary to determine the father's true income.

The court declined to issue a sealing order for the corporate documents, finding a confidentiality agreement and redactions sufficient, but ordered a limited publication ban to protect the children's identities.

The applicant union sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions that declared it no longer represented the employees of the respondent employer.

The union argued the Board unreasonably dismissed its allegations of employer interference without a hearing, relying on a continuing taint from a prior Board finding of interference three years earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding it was reasonable for the Board to require the union to plead specific, proximate facts of interference rather than relying on the historical taint, especially since the statute does not impose a reverse onus on the employer in these circumstances.

Following a successful application for judicial review where the court found a denial of procedural fairness by the Town, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis for the application and several related motions.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to award costs for the related motions or to set aside a previous costs order.

However, the court awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs of $44,329.66 for the judicial review application, citing the Town's conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and the denial of procedural fairness.

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.

The moving party father brought a motion to terminate child support, incurring nearly $400,000 in legal fees, which was ultimately dismissed.

The responding party mother, who was largely self-represented but utilized unbundled legal services, sought costs.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and disproportionate to the financial issues at stake.

The court awarded the mother $90,000 in costs, recognizing the need to compensate self-represented litigants and those using limited scope retainers to ensure access to justice.

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 appellant father appealed final orders regarding custody, access, and child support made by a case conference judge.

The father, who was unrepresented at the conference, had requested an adjournment to retain counsel, which was denied.

The case conference judge proceeded to make final substantive orders based on the mother's offer to settle and an Office of the Children's Lawyer report, despite the lack of consent or formal evidentiary record.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that making opposed final orders at a case conference without proper evidence or procedural fairness constitutes a palpable and overriding error.

The orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the lower court.

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.