Natalia Denchik

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a retroactive child support claim involving three children, focusing on the appropriate start date for support, the imputation of income to the father, and the payment of arrears.

The court applied the framework from Colucci v. Colucci for retroactive support, determining the presumptive start date as February 1, 2021, based on effective notice of dissatisfaction with support.

The father’s income was imputed at minimum wage levels due to lack of medical evidence supporting his claimed inability to work full-time.

The court fixed arrears at $30,000 and ordered a payment plan balancing the father’s financial limitations and the children’s needs.

The mother’s claim for section 7 expenses was denied due to procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.

The Applicant sought a contempt finding against the Respondent for alleged breaches of a final order.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law, requiring strict procedural adherence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Applicant failed to exhaust other enforcement avenues and brought the motion on a regular list despite material facts being in dispute, necessitating a viva voce hearing.

Costs were awarded to the Respondent, and an order for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was issued on consent.

The applicant mother sought costs for her successful motion for temporary parenting orders.

The respondent father failed to comply with court timelines for costs submissions and improperly sought his own costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the underlying motion, despite some divided success on parenting time, and that the father's conduct was unreasonable, increasing the mother's costs.

The court awarded the mother $2,000 in costs, payable in installments, considering the father's limited means.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, and a structured parenting time schedule with conditions for the respondent father regarding their four-year-old child.

The respondent father opposed, seeking equal parenting time and a referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, citing high conflict and concerns over the father's parenting judgment.

A gradually increasing parenting time schedule was ordered for the father, subject to specific conditions.

The father's request for an Office of the Children's Lawyer referral was dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration of a trust interest in the matrimonial home, which was solely registered in the respondent's name.

The court found that the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's extensive contributions to the home's renovation and maintenance, as well as her assistance in his business.

Concluding that a monetary award under the Family Law Act would be insufficient due to the respondent's debts and CRA liens, the court imposed a constructive trust, declaring the applicant holds a 50% interest in the home.

The court also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for credit card debts and recent home repair costs from the sale proceeds.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parental access to a three-year-old child.

The mother sought costs of $21,843 from the father.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access substantially closer to her position than the father's position.

The father exhibited unreasonable behaviour including failure to follow court timetables, delayed disclosure of criminal records, breaches of temporary court orders, and failure to make settlement offers.

The court declined to find bad faith but awarded costs reflecting the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's reasonable behaviour throughout the proceedings.

This trial determined whether a father with a history of serious sex offences, including convictions for sexual assault and possession of child pornography, should have unsupervised access to his three-year-old son.

The father sought unsupervised alternate weekend visits.

The mother sought supervised access through a private fee-for-service provider.

The court found that despite positive factors in the father-child relationship, the father's extensive criminal history, lack of insight into risk concerns, failure to undergo treatment, and recent breaches of supervision orders necessitated long-term supervised access.

The court ordered supervised access through Brayden on alternate Sundays for up to seven hours, with costs to be paid by the father.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision in a family law matter concerning income imputation and asset division.

The trial judge found the respondent was unemployed and effectively unemployable based on medical evidence and refused to impute income.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's curtailment of cross-examination on the respondent's medical condition and the refusal to grant an adjournment for additional witnesses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions, finding no error in enforcing time limits, refusing the adjournment without reasonable explanation for late witness summoning, and finding that family assets were divided equally with the appellant purchasing Syrian properties from equalization proceeds.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the applicant society sought a finding that a 15-year-old girl was in need of protection.

The society alleged physical abuse, emotional harm, and risk of ongoing harm resulting from the mother's pattern of aggressive behavior, uncontrolled anger, and unaddressed mental health issues.

The mother denied the allegations and provided sparse evidence consisting largely of bald denials.

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the society's position.

The court found that the child had suffered physical harm through repeated hitting and was at risk of ongoing physical harm, and that the child had suffered serious emotional harm including anxiety and fear, with ongoing risk of emotional harm.

The court granted the finding in need of protection under sections 37(2)(a)(ii), 37(2)(b)(ii), 37(2)(f), and 37(2)(g) of the Act.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change in a family law matter involving custody and child support.

The court heard motions to change brought by both the mother (applicant) and father (respondent) on June 25, 2015.

The court ordered joint custody with equal-time sharing, and ordered the father to pay child support of $457 per month with arrears of $5,088.

The father sought costs of $15,205.22, while the mother requested no costs be awarded.

The court determined that while the father was successful on the dominant parenting issue, the mother was more successful on the support issue.

Considering all relevant factors, the court awarded costs to the mother in the reduced amount of $6,000, payable at $200 per month.

Motion to change a custody and child support order.

The father sought sole custody and termination of child support.

The mother sought sole custody and increased child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's alcohol abuse, criminal charges, and exposure of the child to domestic conflict.

The court maintained joint custody with a shared parenting arrangement (alternating weeks), finding both parents capable but concerned about the mother's stability.

Child support was adjusted retroactively and prospectively, with the father's income imputed to the mother for calculation purposes under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Motion to change a custody and child support order.

The father sought sole custody and termination of child support.

The mother sought sole custody and increased child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's alcohol abuse, criminal charges, and exposure of the child to domestic conflict.

The court maintained joint custody with a shared parenting arrangement (alternating weeks), finding both parents capable but concerned about the mother's stability.

Child support was adjusted retroactively and prospectively, with the father's income imputed to the mother for calculation purposes under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

This is a costs decision following a motion hearing on family law matters.

The court had previously ordered the respondent (father) to pay temporary child support of $1,331 per month and spousal support of $350 per month, and granted the applicant (mother) supervised access to the children with a prohibition on removal from Ontario.

The applicant sought costs of either $9,859.69 or alternatively $6,017.69.

The court assessed costs considering the parties' conduct, the lack of settlement offers, the proportionality of time claimed, and the complexity of the issues.

The court awarded costs of $3,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days.

The mother brought motions for temporary child support, spousal support, financial disclosure, delivery of children's documents, and surrender of the father's passport as security.

The father, residing in Bermuda, brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access including extended access in Bermuda.

The court granted supervised access at APCO pending further investigation, ordered the father to pay child support and spousal support, prohibited removal of children from Ontario, and dismissed the passport security request.

The court adjourned the access motion pending referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and receipt of Children's Aid Society records.

A costs decision following a family law trial involving child support and spousal support.

The court found divided success between the parties.

The father obtained an entitlement to spousal support but received significantly less than sought and for a limited term.

The mother successfully obtained a child support order and imputed income to the father.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $756, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, to be offset against support arrears owed by the mother to the father.

A trial concerning child and spousal support between unmarried parents of a thirteen-year-old child.

The mother sought child support retroactive to November 2012 (separation date) and requested imputation of the father's income at $60,000 per annum.

The father sought spousal support of $1,000-$1,400 per month with no time limit.

The court found the father deliberately under-employed and imputed his income at $28,000 per annum based on his capacity to earn.

The court awarded child support of $228 per month and time-limited spousal support of $480 per month for nine years, with both awards offset so that the mother pays the father $252 per month net.

Support obligations commenced January 1, 2014.

The respondent brought a motion seeking the return of her child, Tristan, to Vienna, Austria under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The applicant had retained the child in Ontario after a three-month visit that was scheduled to end on March 7, 2012.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Austria, that the applicant wrongfully retained the child, and that Austria was the proper jurisdiction for custody and access disputes.

The court ordered the return of the child to the respondent's care and custody and vacated previous orders restricting the child's removal from Ontario.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking an order authorizing the sale of the matrimonial home and dispensing with the respondent spouse’s consent to documents necessary to effect the sale.

The parties’ separation agreement required the property to be listed and sold within one year, but the respondent refused to cooperate and stated he would not sell the property.

The court found the respondent was unreasonably withholding consent within the meaning of s. 23(b)(iii) of the Family Law Act and had failed to file responding material or comply with prior orders.

The court authorized the applicant to list and sell the property through a specified real estate agent, dispensed with the respondent’s spousal consent to sale documents, and ordered preservation of the property pending sale.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.