Helen Kurgatnikov Miller

The applicant, Anna Kovalchuk, sought costs following an uncontested trial on parenting and child support.

The respondent, Sergeii Kovalchuk, did not make submissions.

The court found the applicant substantially successful at trial, but her offer to settle was not more favourable than the final result due to an income assessment discrepancy.

The respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with disclosure orders and non-attendance at trial.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 30 days, finding the amount reasonable and proportional given the case's importance but lack of complexity, and the respondent's ability to pay.

The applicant mother sought parenting and child support orders for the parties' 10-year-old daughter.

The respondent father did not attend the uncontested hearing or file responding materials.

The court determined the start date for retroactive child support, imputing income to the father due to his non-disclosure and blameworthy conduct.

It calculated and ordered the father's contribution to section 7 special and extraordinary expenses.

The court also ordered the father to maintain extended medical coverage and irrevocably designate the child as a beneficiary on his life insurance, finding jurisdiction under the Family Law Act for these necessities.

This protection application concerned three children whose mother was murdered.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection and final custody to their maternal aunt, with whom they had resided since their mother's death.

The respondent father (MH) of two of the children sought custody of his daughters.

The court found the children in need of protection due to physical harm (dental neglect), risk of physical harm (neglect of immunizations, exposure to domestic violence), risk of emotional harm (domestic violence, housing instability, risk of removal from long-term caregiver), and inadequate provision for care after the mother's death.

The court dismissed the father's bid for custody, finding his plan not viable and his credibility lacking, and granted final custody of all three children to the maternal aunt, emphasizing the children's best interests, continuity of care, and the aunt's demonstrated ability to meet their needs.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) sought leave to withdraw its protection application concerning three children (G., Y., L.) after two years of litigation.

The father (M.H.) opposed the withdrawal, citing ongoing protection concerns related to the maternal aunt's (L.M.) care and alleged parental alienation.

The maternal aunt supported the withdrawal, having initiated a private Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) application for sole decision-making responsibility.

The court dismissed the CAS's motion to withdraw, finding serious ongoing protection concerns, potential prejudice to the father and children in a private domestic proceeding, and that withdrawal would usurp the court's function to determine if the children are in need of protection.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order placing a three-year-old child with the maternal grandfather.

The motion was prompted by serious allegations of sexual abuse against the grandfather and domestic violence.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that placement with the society was in the child's best interests, citing the grandmother's lack of protective capacity, her historical pattern of abandonment, and her failure to disclose known abuse allegations to the society.

The applicant, Eirini Flesias, brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a primary parenting order for the youngest child (J), conduct orders, and the return of her government documents.

She also sought a certificate of pending litigation.

The court found the motion urgent due to the applicant's homelessness and inability to see her child during a public health crisis, exacerbated by the respondents' tactical conduct.

The court granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the applicant, established a primary residence for J with the applicant and a specific parenting schedule for the respondent Paul Flesias, issued conduct orders, and ordered the return of the applicant's documents.

The motion for a certificate of pending litigation was adjourned pending the commencement of the main application, but a "no dealing" order was issued for the property in the interim.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, with Paul Flesias solely responsible for parenting-related costs and Paul and Basile Flesias jointly and severally responsible for property-related costs.

A costs decision concerning counsel's conduct in a family law matter involving custody and child support claims.

The respondent's counsel repeatedly failed to attend court appearances despite being counsel of record, ignored court directions to explain her conduct, and failed to properly withdraw from the file.

The court found this conduct caused unnecessary costs to both the applicant and the respondent, and ordered the counsel to pay personal costs to both parties and to refrain from charging fees or disbursements for work on the case.

A father sought a refraining order to prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from directing suspension of his driver's licence due to child support arrears of $30,352.93.

The father had paid no child support since a 2012 order requiring $426 monthly payments.

He proposed to begin payments of $426 plus $200 monthly toward arrears starting January 1, 2019, and undertook to bring a motion to change the support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father failed to come to court with clean hands despite having steady employment and the ability to pay.

This is a costs decision following a trial on a spousal support claim.

The mother was awarded $1,275 per month in spousal support commencing April 1, 2017.

The mother had served an Offer to Settle seeking $900 per month commencing September 1, 2017, which was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The father failed to accept the offer and did not file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the mother full recovery of costs from the date of the offer and partial recovery prior to that date, totalling $14,203.30, payable within 45 days.

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father in a short marriage that ended following the father's criminal assault on the mother.

The father conceded that some spousal support was owing but disputed the amount.

The father failed to file his evidence in chief as ordered and did not testify at trial.

The court awarded spousal support of $1,275 per month for an indefinite duration, reviewable after December 31, 2021.

The court rejected the father's argument that the mother should be working or that income should be imputed to her, finding her decision to pursue English language education and vocational training reasonable given her circumstances as sole caregiver of two children, one of whom suffered emotional trauma from witnessing the father's assault.

The applicant sought costs of $457,000 following a 28-day family law trial involving custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property issues.

The respondent argued no costs should be ordered.

The court found the applicant achieved considerable success on the most important issues, including custody, parenting schedule, and support.

Furthermore, the court found the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by intentionally concealing that his restricted stock unit income was in U.S. dollars to improperly reduce his support obligations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $400,000 in costs, with $200,000 attributed to support issues.

The parties separated after a 17-year cohabitation and marriage.

The mother sought sole custody of their 9-year-old child, while the father sought sole custody and equal parenting time.

The court found the parents were unable to communicate or make decisions cooperatively, largely due to the father's unrealistic expectations, unilateral changes to the parenting schedule, and refusal to accept professional advice regarding the child's need for counselling.

The mother was awarded sole custody, and the existing parenting schedule was largely maintained.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support, proportionate section 7 expenses, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support based on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.