Oleksiy Bykov

The applicant father sought a declaration that the respondent mother wrongfully removed their two children from China to Ontario, and an order for their return.

The mother argued the Ontario court had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) or s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that while the children were physically present in Ontario, there was no substantial evidence regarding their best interests in the province, and the balance of convenience did not favour Ontario.

The court also rejected the mother's argument that returning the children to China would cause them serious harm.

The court declared the removal wrongful and ordered the children returned to China.

The Applicant sought to strike the Respondent's pleadings due to his persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders and rules, and the Respondent sought the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the Respondent engaged in intentional delay tactics and provided unreliable financial information.

While declining to immediately strike pleadings due to the child's interests and the imminence of trial, the court imposed a $10,000 penalty on the Respondent, with daily fines for late payment, and ordered that his pleadings on financial issues would be struck if he failed to comply within 45 days.

The Respondent was also barred from using his expert's reports without consent and from bringing further motions without leave.

The Respondent's motion for the sale of the matrimonial home was dismissed due to his unreliable financial claims, the imminence of trial, and potential prejudice to the Applicant and child.

Eric James Dalton was charged with assault for allegedly pushing the mother of his child, Di Huang.

The Crown called the complainant and arresting officers, while Mr. Dalton represented himself and testified.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, particularly the complainant's initial reluctance to provide details and inconsistencies, which were accepted as logical reactions within the context of intimate partner violence.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, while rejecting the defendant's account as illogical and not credible.

Dalton was found guilty of assault.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for sole decision-making authority for the child, and to dispense with the respondent father's consent for the child's passport renewal and international travel.

While the father consented to the passport and travel issues after the motion was served, the court proceeded to determine the interim decision-making issue.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority, finding that the father's abusive communication, non-compliance with previous orders, and general unwillingness to co-parent made joint decision-making impossible and contrary to the child's best interests.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant, V.K., appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault against his ex-wife and two counts of assault against his daughter, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and failed to apply the test from R. v. W.(D.).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the unorthodox delivery, the trial judge's reasons revealed a clear basis for conviction, demonstrating an understanding and application of the W.(D.) principles.

The court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings, which were based on a holistic assessment of the evidence, including the consistent testimony of the daughter and the partial reliability of the appellant's own evidence.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to include substantial new claims for general damages, unrelated to the delay in performance of share purchase agreements.

The Defendants opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding that the proposed amendments directly contradicted previous court orders that had delineated the scope of permissible residual claims, thereby causing uncompensable prejudice to the Defendants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that granted the respondent's second motion to set aside a 2006 default judgment.

The respondent's first motion to set aside the judgment had been dismissed in 2017, a decision upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised in the second motion was res judicata.

The deputy judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second motion, which amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on a final decision.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court found that the accused failed to establish the requisite degree of indigency, as he earned a decent wage and had the ability to save for legal fees.

Furthermore, the court determined that funded counsel was not essential to a fair trial, given the straightforward nature of the case and the fact that court-appointed counsel would conduct the cross-examination of the complainant and handle complex evidentiary motions.

The application was dismissed.

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 applicant brought a motion to set aside a Russian divorce order obtained by the respondent.

The applicant argued the divorce was invalid due to lack of proper service, lack of a real and substantial connection to Russia, and because it was obtained in bad faith to avoid Canadian spousal support obligations.

The court dismissed the arguments regarding service and connection, finding the applicant had notice and the parties maintained sufficient ties to Russia.

However, the court ordered a half-day trial to determine whether the respondent sought the foreign divorce specifically to avoid paying spousal support, which would violate public policy.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties following a 16-year marriage.

The respondent husband claimed he was disabled, unemployed, and had no assets, asserting that properties and funds were owned by his parents.

The court found the husband and his parents lacked credibility and had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $70,000 to the husband based on his intentional under-employment and hidden wealth.

Applying the presumption of resulting trust, the court found the husband held beneficial interests in several commercial properties registered in his mother's name.

The court ordered the husband to pay lump sum child and spousal support due to his history of non-payment and hidden assets, and ordered an equalization payment of $286,884.54 to the applicant.

The defendant was charged with racing a motor vehicle on a highway contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, specifically for outdistancing or attempting to outdistance another vehicle while driving at a marked departure from the lawful speed limit.

The Crown's evidence, provided by a police constable, alleged the defendant was driving in the northbound lane at 110-120 km/h beside another vehicle.

The defendant testified he remained in the southbound lane at approximately 60 km/h, attempting to pass a stopped vehicle.

The court found the defendant's evidence credible and, when considered in context with all evidence, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he was outdistancing another vehicle or driving at a marked departure from the lawful speed.

The defendant was acquitted of racing but convicted of the included offence of speeding.