George Czutrin

Costs decision following a family law motion concerning temporary custody, parenting schedule, and interim child and spousal support.

The moving party sought costs after obtaining disclosure orders, an interim parenting schedule, and interim support.

The court found the responding party acted unreasonably by failing for years to file an answer or financial statement, ignoring disclosure requests, and unilaterally reducing support payments.

The court emphasized the obligation under the Family Law Rules to make timely disclosure and promote the primary objective of resolving cases justly and efficiently.

The moving party was found to be the more reasonable litigant and entitled to costs.

Following an urgent family law motion permitting the sale of the matrimonial home without the respondent spouse’s consent, the successful applicant sought full recovery costs.

The respondent argued that costs should either not be awarded or be reserved to the trial judge.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules there is a presumption that the successful party receives costs at each step of the proceeding.

Deferring costs to trial was inappropriate where the motion had been decided and the applicant had succeeded.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 payable by the respondent, subject to potential reconsideration at trial if bad faith were later established.

In a family law proceeding involving child and spousal support, the court addressed the extent of participation permitted to a respondent whose Answer had been struck for repeated non‑compliance with disclosure orders.

The respondent had failed for an extended period to provide adequate financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and opportunities to comply.

The court balanced the Family Law Rules objective of dealing with cases justly against the need to deter parties from ignoring court orders and imposing unnecessary costs on the opposing party.

The court limited the respondent’s role at the upcoming uncontested hearing, permitting only written submissions and limited documentary disclosure from third parties, while prohibiting other forms of participation such as cross‑examination.

The applicant was permitted to call the respondent for cross‑examination if she chose.

The parties sought enforcement of a consent order incorporating Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent mother to permanently relocate within 30 km of the applicant father’s residence by January 1, 2013 in order to choose the child’s school and receive relocation payments.

The dispute concerned whether the respondent had permanently relocated in compliance with the settlement terms.

After hearing oral evidence due to credibility issues, the court found the respondent had not acted in good faith and had not established a permanent residence within the meaning of the agreement, including cancelling a condominium purchase and instead renting a temporary room while proposing further moves.

The court concluded the respondent failed to comply with the settlement and consent order.

Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to relocation payments or to choose the child’s school, and the child was to remain in the current school.

Following an urgent family law motion granting the wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs on the basis that the respondent acted in bad faith by returning to the home immediately after being acquitted of criminal charges, knowing the applicant was bound by an undertaking restricting proximity and communication.

The court reviewed the surrounding circumstances and prior findings that the respondent’s actions demonstrated poor judgment and created an urgent situation requiring court intervention.

Applying Rule 24(1)(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.

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.

Following a consent order resolving parenting issues, the court addressed costs arising from competing motions and an adjournment.

The moving party had short‑served extensive motion materials seeking contempt findings, parenting changes, and financial relief.

The responding party argued that the motion was unnecessary and that the eventual parenting arrangement largely reflected the responding party’s earlier offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court found the responding party to be the more successful party and concluded the motion could have been avoided through proper scheduling and conference procedures.

The court ordered costs in favour of the responding party.

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 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.

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.

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.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the parties' subsidized three-bedroom home and for a temporary parenting schedule for their two young children.

The parties had a history of domestic altercations and frequent moves.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to return to the subsidized home with the mother, as her native status facilitated the housing application.

The father was ordered to vacate the home and was granted a temporary parenting schedule of alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights, with exchanges to occur at daycare to minimize contact between the parents.

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 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.

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.