George Czutrin

Following a five-day family law trial regarding parenting, support, and the validity of a marriage contract, the respondent sought costs of $119,705.54.

The applicant, who was self-represented at trial, argued that each party should bear their own costs.

The court reviewed the history of the litigation, the parties' respective offers to settle, and their conduct.

Finding that the respondent was the successful party and had acted reasonably throughout, while the applicant had acted unreasonably by avoiding disclosure and causing delay, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $100,000 in costs.

In a family law proceeding involving equalization and support issues, the responding spouse sought an advance on the equalization payment or interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The parties had previously consented to an order requiring disclosure, retaining a joint income analysis expert, and permitting the respondent to encumber the matrimonial home for certain legal and accounting costs.

The court reviewed the existing consent order and a subsequent disclosure order and concluded that the issues of interim disbursements and advances had already been adequately addressed.

No additional relief was granted, and the matter was left to proceed with completion of expert reports and continued case management.

In a family law proceeding scheduled for imminent trial, the responding party sought leave to bring a late motion for production and forensic examination of a corporation’s original minute book and corporate tax returns to challenge the moving party’s asserted ownership interests.

The court found the disclosure requests related to issues long known to the parties and held the motion could and should have been brought months earlier.

Given the proximity of trial and the absence of any identified expert or feasible expert process under the Rules, the court declined to grant the requested relief.

Instead, the court ordered limited pre-trial inspection of the corporate minute book and original accounting records to streamline the upcoming trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party to the motion.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent spouse brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant spouse to place him on her extended health and dental plan so he could obtain psychological counselling.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that the moving party was subject to prior court orders prohibiting further motions until compliance with outstanding temporary orders, including substantial unpaid costs, and that he remained in arrears.

The court also noted that the requested relief was incidental to a support claim where no support order had been made or requested, and that the benefits plan likely did not permit the addition of a separated spouse.

The court concluded the claim failed on multiple grounds and dismissed the motion.

The applicant brought motions in a family law proceeding seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders and to strike the respondent’s Answer for persistent disclosure failures.

The court reviewed a lengthy history of non-compliance with disclosure obligations, unpaid support, and failure to provide proof of compliance with prior orders regarding debts and financial disclosure.

While declining to immediately strike the Answer or make a contempt finding, the court granted an adjournment on strict conditions requiring proof of discharged loans, production of personal and corporate tax returns, updated financial disclosure, and payment toward support arrears.

The court warned that failure to comply with any of the terms could permit the applicant to move without notice to strike the respondent’s Answer.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought an adjournment of the respondent’s motion to reduce a temporary spousal support order of $12,000 per month.

The respondent also sought relief including recharacterizing prior payments for tax purposes, disclosure orders, and access to the matrimonial home for appraisal.

The court determined that the issues, particularly the respondent’s income and competing expert evidence, required a longer motion and that questioning and expert review should occur first.

The motion was adjourned and procedural directions were ordered regarding disclosure, expert meetings, and questioning timelines.

Costs decision following a family law motion seeking to compel disclosure and other relief relating to financial statements and property issues potentially involving third parties.

The court found the moving party’s motion to compel disclosure was largely premature, unnecessary, and overreaching because disclosure timelines had not been fixed, pleadings were incomplete, and some disclosure required cooperation from non-parties.

The court also noted the moving party accepted the responding party’s valuation date during the motion.

Finding that the responding party attempted to avoid the motion and was the successful party, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

In a family law proceeding involving competing motions to change a prior consent order, the applicant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent’s motion to change materials that disclosed information from a parenting coordination process.

Although the original court order contemplated an open parenting coordination process, the parties subsequently agreed with the parenting coordinator to conduct the process on a closed basis.

The respondent argued that disclosure was permissible because the closed process conflicted with the prior order.

The court held that parenting coordination derives its authority from the parties’ consent and constitutes a form of secondary arbitration under the Family Law Act and the Arbitration Act.

Because the parties consented to a closed process, the respondent could not unilaterally disclose information arising from it, and the impugned portions of the materials were struck with costs.

The respondent sought to enforce interim child and spousal support payments previously ordered, while the applicant sought relief from paying arrears and a retroactive reduction of support based on the respondent's new employment.

The court found the applicant's expert report on his self-employment income inadequate and ordered the applicant to pay the arrears from funds held in trust.

The court also set temporary ongoing child and spousal support based on imputed incomes of $89,000 for the applicant and $41,000 for the respondent.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after an 11-year relationship.

The father, a business owner, sought joint custody, a determination of support, and enforcement of a marriage contract.

The mother sought custody, support, and equalization, challenging the marriage contract's validity.

The court found the marriage contract unenforceable due to lack of financial disclosure.

The court conditionally maintained joint custody, ordering the father to relocate closer to the child's school or face a reduction in parenting time.

The court imputed the father's income at $338,000, adding back corporate expenses and income split with his new wife, and ordered him to pay $8,000 per month in spousal support and $2,316 per month in child support.

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.

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.

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 wife commenced an application for divorce, custody, and property equalization in Ontario.

The husband, who had commenced competing proceedings in Nigeria, brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that the wife had prima facie established that she was ordinarily resident in Ontario for at least one year preceding the application, satisfying the Divorce Act residency requirement.

However, the court ordered a trial of an issue to determine whether Ontario or Nigeria is the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens), as there was insufficient evidence regarding Nigerian family law, the validity of the marriage, and the parties' international property holdings.

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.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging the mother failed to comply with a court order requiring their child to attend daycare daily.

The mother argued the daycare location was impractical and she was available to care for the child.

The court declined to alter the daycare requirement pending evidence addressing the mother's alleged alcohol issues, and adjourned the contempt motion.

The court also set the father's interim income for support purposes based on his 2010 Notice of Assessment, pending further documentation of his current consulting income.

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.