Robert John Charko

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

At the hearing, the respondent tenants did not appear.

The court noted that the respondents' counsel had been removed from the record by a prior order, which was not in the court file, and the respondents had vacated the rental unit without leaving a forwarding address.

As there was no evidence that the respondents had been advised of the hearing date, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal to a date to be set by the Registrar.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment within a Status Review Application concerning the child S.M.A.A. The Society sought an order finding the child in need of protection, placing the child in the custody of the father, and granting the mother supervised access.

The mother did not file responding materials or attend the hearing.

The father consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the proposed placement.

The child was placed in the father's custody, and the mother was granted supervised access by a mutually agreeable third party, with location, frequency, and duration at the father's discretion.

The applicant sought an increase in spousal support and retroactive support based on a separation agreement.

The agreement allowed for a review of support if the respondent obtained his millwright qualification, which he did, resulting in a significant increase in his income.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to an increase in ongoing support but denied retroactive support prior to the agreed review date.

Spousal support was increased from $209 to $600 per month.

A parenting and child support trial concerning a young child whose parents never cohabited and had a history of significant conflict regarding parenting arrangements.

The applicant sought sole custody and a shared parenting schedule, while the respondent sought sole custody with structured access and table child support.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the parties lacked the communication and cooperation necessary for joint custody and that the respondent had historically assumed responsibility for the child’s education, health care, and primary decision‑making.

Concerns regarding the applicant’s stability, credibility, residential instability, and ability to ensure school readiness supported limiting overnight access during the school week.

The respondent was granted sole custody with structured access to the applicant and child support based on the Child Support Guidelines.

The father brought an urgent motion to prevent the mother from relocating with their two daughters to the Ottawa area.

The mother sought to rescind a previous order prohibiting the move and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) update.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the last custody order, including the mother's undisclosed autoimmune illness and the special needs of one of the children.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court held there was insufficient evidence regarding the proposed new environment to determine the children's best interests.

The court denied the relocation pending a full hearing, confirmed the order for an OCL update, and ordered that if the mother moves, the father shall have immediate custody.

The applicant father sought to have child support arrears dismissed, while the respondent mother sought arrears of $23,012.00 plus costs.

The parties had entered into a separation agreement in 2009 providing for child support of $1,500.00 per month.

Subsequent material changes in the children's living arrangements occurred, including the father's relocation to British Columbia and changes in custody arrangements.

The court found that arrears were owing based on changed circumstances and applied the Child Support Guidelines retroactively.

However, exercising discretion under the Family Law Act, the court reduced the arrears from approximately $20,000.00 to $10,000.00, considering the father's financial capacity, the children's circumstances, and additional expenses paid by the father.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, 7.5 years after his dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the extreme delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his drug addiction and subsequent rehabilitation, as well as ignorance of the Tribunal's existence.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had not suffered a reoccurrence of his disability for over four years and failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing his rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought enforcement of a separation agreement requiring the deceased former spouse to maintain life insurance naming the applicant as irrevocable beneficiary to secure ongoing child support obligations.

After changing employment, the deceased obtained new life insurance but named his new spouse as beneficiary, contrary to the agreement.

Following the deceased’s death, the insurance proceeds were paid to the new spouse while the estate lacked sufficient assets to satisfy the obligation.

The court held that the life insurance proceeds were intended as security for the deceased’s child support obligations and that equity justified the imposition of a constructive trust over the proceeds received by the respondent.

The respondent was ordered to pay funds into court to secure ongoing support payments for the dependent child.