Jerry Chaimovitz

During a child protection trial involving allegations of sexual abuse, the parents moved for a mistrial after the presiding judge raised concerns that the Society's counsel had inadvertently undermined the credibility of the key witness, a vulnerable 17-year-old complainant, during examination-in-chief.

The judge granted the mistrial, finding that it was impossible to rule out that the witness's subsequent testimony was affected and that a reasonable apprehension of bias would arise if the trial continued, thereby compromising fairness to the parties and the integrity of the court process.

The applicant brought a motion to temporarily vary an existing custody arrangement so that the children would primarily reside with him pending trial.

The respondent opposed the request, disputing allegations regarding school attendance and safety concerns related to her household.

The court focused primarily on the children’s best interests and their consistent attendance at school.

Given the proximity of the applicant’s residence to the children’s school and the pattern of lateness when they resided with the respondent, the court found that temporary residence with the applicant would provide greater stability.

The order was made without prejudice pending the scheduled trial, and child support was temporarily terminated.

The respondent brought a motion to change a prior child support order, seeking termination or reduction of support following the end of employment insurance benefits and while pursuing self-employment as a metal artist through an educational business program.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought an order imputing income to the payor based on his historical earnings as a welder.

The court held that the payor was intentionally under‑employed and failed to make reasonable efforts to secure comparable employment.

The payor also failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and did not demonstrate that his educational pursuits justified reduced earnings.

Income was imputed at $50,000 and the motion to reduce support was dismissed.

A parenting and support dispute following a brief trial between unmarried parents of a young child.

The father sought joint custody and liberal unsupervised access, while the mother sought sole custody and supervised access pending completion of counselling programs.

The court found the father had minimal involvement with the child, demonstrated aggressive behaviour, and failed to meaningfully participate in the child’s upbringing.

Sole custody was granted to the mother and the father’s access was ordered to be supervised pending completion of anger management and parenting programs.

The court also imputed income to the father under s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines after finding he voluntarily left employment and failed to meet support obligations, ordering retroactive child support and ongoing payments.

The respondent mother commenced a custody application after relocating with the parties’ child from Hungary to Ontario.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention alleging the child was wrongfully retained in Canada and seeking an order for the child’s return to Hungary.

The court examined whether the child’s habitual residence remained Hungary or had changed following the parties’ joint relocation to Canada.

After reviewing the parties’ shared intentions, preparatory steps taken before leaving Hungary, and the family’s arrival at a refugee shelter to initiate residency processes, the court found the parents had a settled intention to abandon their Hungarian residence and establish a new life in Ontario.

Alternatively, even if the transition period initially left the child without a habitual residence, the evidence did not establish wrongful retention under the Hague Convention.

The application was dismissed and Ontario was held to be the proper forum for custody and access proceedings.

Paternal grandparents sought temporary custody of their granddaughter, Maddison, born May 2, 2009, who had been in their care since July 2010 following an incident of alleged domestic violence between the parents.

The mother sought expanded access from alternate Saturdays to alternate weekly access, including overnight visits.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and the principle of maintaining the status quo on temporary motions.

The court found that the grandparents had provided stable care for nearly two years, while the mother had abandoned the child for over a year and demonstrated poor judgment and instability.

The court granted temporary custody to the grandparents and maintained the existing access arrangement of alternate Saturdays, rejecting the mother's request for expanded access pending the Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her request to increase spousal support after her child support was reduced.

The reduction occurred because the youngest child changed her primary residence to live with the respondent father, and the mother was paying no child support for that child.

The appellant also challenged the motion judge's allowance of the respondent's business expenses for calculating child support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's discretionary decisions reasonable.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision that dismissed his application to set aside a separation agreement and ordered him to pay spousal support, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal found the spousal support award was appropriate, particularly given the husband's recent bankruptcy which would deprive the respondent wife of property-related costs and require her to assume joint debt.

The court also upheld the child support and section 7 expenses as they were provided for in the parties' separation agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an order made by a Superior Court judge sitting in Family Court in a child protection proceeding.

The applicant argued that the judge should be deemed a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice under the Courts of Justice Act, making the decision subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the judge was sitting as a Superior Court judge and that certiorari does not lie against a decision of a Superior Court judge.