George Czutrin

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order.

The respondent conceded entitlement to temporary spousal support but disputed the amount and brought a cross‑motion seeking sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and production of the applicant’s medical records.

The principal issue concerned the respondent’s income, which the applicant alleged was significantly higher than reported due to employment and trust income connected to a family business.

The court held that the respondent bore the onus of providing adequate disclosure regarding business performance, bonus calculations, and potential trust distributions.

Pending proper disclosure, the court ordered temporary spousal support of $12,000 per month based on the respondent’s last disclosed gross income of $431,693 and adjourned the motion for further evidence.

In a family proceeding joined with a related civil action, the responding spouse brought a motion seeking orders compelling the applicant spouse to answer refusals and satisfy undertakings arising from examinations for discovery.

The disputed questions concerned financial disclosure relating to a loan agreement for home renovations and the alleged ownership of shares in a start‑up pharmaceutical company through the applicant or a related corporation.

The court held that further financial disclosure concerning the applicant’s historical assets was not warranted beyond potentially accessible documents relied upon by the accountant, subject to cost reimbursement.

However, disclosure relating to corporate shareholdings and documents connected to the alleged share interest claim was found relevant and ordered to be produced.

Certain undertakings and refusals relating to the corporate issue were ordered satisfied within 30 days.

The responding spouse sought to strike the applicant spouse’s family law application for failure to comply with a prior order requiring monthly undifferentiated payments and costs following a trial adjournment granted at the applicant’s request.

The applicant acknowledged the breach and proposed partial compliance through RRSP deregistration and payment from trust funds held by counsel, arguing financial hardship and business failure.

The court declined to reconsider the prior order or permit satisfaction of the payments from trust funds, noting insufficient evidence to justify revisiting the earlier ruling and ongoing credibility concerns.

Instead of immediately striking the application, the court adjourned the motion and ordered extensive financial disclosure, including business documentation, banking records, passport records, and updated financial statements.

The applicant was required in the interim to pay funds realized from the RRSP deregistration to the respondent’s counsel pending further determination.

Following a family law motion relating largely to support and financial disclosure, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $14,774.19 and requested that a substantial portion be enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court found the applicant had been largely successful and that the respondent had failed to provide disclosure and comply with a prior consent order.

Although the respondent argued that no settlement offer had been made, that some disclosure had been provided voluntarily, and that the applicant was not entirely successful, the court held that the absence of an offer did not preclude full indemnity costs.

The court also questioned the necessity of two counsel and considered the tax implications of support-related costs under Rule 24.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 plus HST and disbursements.

In a family law appeal concerning child support for an adult child with significant health issues, the respondent sought to raise a constitutional challenge to s. 31 of the Family Law Act for the first time on appeal.

The challenge alleged unequal treatment between children of unmarried parents under the Family Law Act and children of married parents under the Divorce Act.

The court considered the test governing whether new constitutional issues may be raised on appeal, including whether there was a sufficient evidentiary record, whether the issue had been omitted for tactical reasons, and whether injustice would result from refusing to hear it.

The court found that the issue was foreseeable, that a sufficient factual foundation existed, and that the delay was largely attributable to representation issues.

The respondent was therefore permitted to raise the Charter issue and the appeal was directed to proceed with further case management.

The plaintiff was successful on her appeal regarding interim support and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,603.93.

The defendants argued the requested amount was excessive and suggested $4,355.00.

The Divisional Court agreed the plaintiff's bill of costs was excessive, disallowed disbursements for the motion for leave to appeal, and reduced travel expenses.

The court fixed costs in favour of the plaintiff at $6,500 for fees inclusive of GST, plus $1,376.25 in disbursements.

The applicants, foster parents of an Aboriginal Crown ward, sought an urgent judicial review and interim injunction to prevent the children's aid society from removing the child from their care and transferring her to a First Nation in British Columbia.

The society planned to move the child just weeks before she would have been in the applicants' care for two years, at which point they would acquire additional statutory rights.

The court found that the society's haste was motivated by a desire to avoid the applicants gaining these rights, rather than the child's best interests.

The court granted an interim order prohibiting the removal of the child pending the completion of the administrative and judicial reviews.