Irene Petrakis

The Applicant sought an order for disclosure from and leave to question non-parties (the Respondent's son and accountant) regarding the Respondent's assets and income, particularly concerning a family trust (Simcoe Group Trust) which the Applicant suspected was used to shield wealth and decrease Net Family Property (NFP).

The Applicant argued this information was crucial for equalization and support issues and that the Respondent had been vague in his own disclosure.

The Respondent and non-parties opposed, asserting that substantial disclosure had already been provided.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion for non-party disclosure and questioning, finding that the Applicant had not met the objective test under Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), which requires more than suspicion and emphasizes proportionality, privacy interests of non-parties, and avoiding fishing expeditions.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request to remove the matter from the trial sittings, stressing the need for the long-standing family litigation to proceed to trial for finality.

The Applicant mother and Respondent father each brought motions seeking various relief concerning custody, access, and support for their two young children.

A key preliminary issue was the admissibility of an expert report from the mother's psychotherapist, which the court found inadmissible due to lack of expertise and objectivity.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests for their primary residence to remain with the mother, but rejected the mother's request for supervised access, ordering unsupervised access for the father with escalating parenting time.

Interim child and spousal support payments were ordered, and the support motion was adjourned for further evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following an order of May 25, 2020.

The Applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $3613.74 plus $500 for costs submissions, based on success on the motion.

The Respondent argued for no costs, or that costs be reserved to the trial judge, or offset against child support arrears, and highlighted her limited means.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success and the Respondent's limited means, fixing costs at $3500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable by the Respondent to the Applicant within 60 days.

The applicant sought to return their child to an equal week-about parenting schedule, citing urgency due to the pandemic.

The respondent consented to the return to the schedule but cross-moved for a Voice of the Child Report, a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment, or a s. 112 Courts of Justice Act report.

The court granted the applicant's request for the immediate return to the established parenting schedule with police enforcement and ordered compliance with COVID-19 directives and non-disparagement.

The respondent's cross-motion for reports was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of reasonable notice and the absence of a case conference.