Kirsi Hanna Ralko

The applicant sought a divorce, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and ongoing and retroactive child support for their seven-year-old child.

The parties were married in 2016 and separated in 2017.

The applicant has been the primary caregiver since the child's birth in Ontario, while the respondent initially remained in Quebec and later relocated to Texas.

The court granted the applicant's application, awarding sole decision-making responsibility to the applicant, parenting time to the respondent consisting of weekly virtual calls and monthly in-person visits within Ontario, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed income for periods of intentional underemployment and the respondent's current earnings.

The applicant husband sought unsupervised parenting time for the parties' two children (ages 6 and 2).

The respondent wife opposed, citing allegations of family violence and the husband's criminal charges.

The court found it in the children's best interests to have temporary supervised parenting time, noting the husband's lack of detailed involvement in the children's care as presented in his affidavits and the wife's legitimate safety concerns.

The motion for unsupervised access was effectively denied, and a temporary order for supervised parenting time was granted, with a future check-in conference to review and potentially expand access.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking the return of the parties’ child to Renfrew County, Ontario, or, alternatively, transfer of the child to her care in Virginia.

The child had been unilaterally relocated by the applicant father to New Brunswick to live with the paternal grandparents, in breach of a prior US court order and the Divorce Act's relocation provisions.

The court found the father and grandparents failed to comply with legal requirements and that it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the primary care of the mother in Virginia, despite the grandparents' arguments regarding stability and the child's purported preferences.

The father brought a motion to change a 2017 parenting order concerning a young child.

He argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred due to employment changes, relocation back to the child’s community, the birth of the child’s sibling, and the mother’s unilateral restriction of parenting time.

The court found a material change had occurred and held that the child’s best interests required a more stable and balanced parenting schedule.

The court rejected the father’s request for a two‑week rotating schedule but implemented a week‑about shared parenting arrangement and replaced the earlier order.

The court also recalculated child support arrears and set a payment plan while maintaining joint decision‑making responsibility.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful trial on custody and parenting arrangements.

The trial resulted in a joint shared custodial arrangement with child support payable in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent opposed the costs award, arguing that the applicant's offer to settle was unreasonable, that domestic violence issues forced litigation, and that a costs award would cause financial hardship.

The court found that the applicant's offer was reasonable, that the respondent acted unreasonably by refusing settlement, and that the respondent's domestic violence claims were unsupported by evidence.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of the offer to settle.

A custody and access application concerning one child, Haedyn Alexa Karambetsos, born March 15, 2011.

The father sought joint custody with shared residence, while the mother sought sole custody with primary residence.

The mother alleged domestic violence and claimed inability to communicate with the father.

The court found both parents equally capable of parenting, rejected the domestic violence allegations as unsubstantiated, and determined the mother's refusal to communicate was a strategic choice rather than a consequence of abuse.

The court awarded joint custody with a week-about shared residence arrangement and minimal child support.