CITATION: Tosic v. Economopoulos, 2026 ONSC 4057
COURT FILE NO.: FC956/25 DATE: July 10, 2026
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
FAMILY COURT
RE: Suzana Tosic, Applicant
AND:
Aris Economopoulos, Respondent
BEFORE: OUELLETTE J.
COUNSEL: Rebecca M. Coyne, for the Applicant
Natacha R. Leite for the Respondent
HEARD: July 8, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction
[1] Before the court are two motions, both dated June 29, 2026.
[2] The motion brought by the Applicant seeks an order permitting her to travel to Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia with the child, from July 14, 2026 to August 6, 2026. She also proposes am expansion of the parenting schedule for the Respondent.
[3] The motion brought by the Respondent seeks an expansion of parenting time commencing immediately with further increases in December 2026 and January 2027. For the summer, commencing in 2026, he seeks two non-consecutive weeks’ parenting time.
[4] The court was limited in time to hear both motions given the number of matters on the court docket. The only issue on which I will be making a decision is in respect of the Applicant’s travel to Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, the balance of the issues, being:
a. The mother’s request for blanket consent to travel within North America for up to 7 days on 15-days’ notice without written consent of the Respondent;
b. Recording of exchanges; and
c. The Respondent’s regular and holiday parenting schedule.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I make an order permitting the Applicant to travel from July 14, 2026 to August 6, 2026, as requested in her notice of motion.
[6] On the return date of the motion which I set before me for one hour, on July 14, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. (virtually), the parties will be held to one hour for submissions. During this hearing I will address the Respondent’s make-up/summer holiday parenting time.
Affidavit Evidence in Support of These Motions
[7] It is readily apparent from the motion materials that the parties are engaged in a high-conflict co-parenting relationship. Both parties used these motions as an opportunity to catalogue the other's perceived shortcomings and grievances. In doing so, they frequently lost sight of the fact that the focus of the court's inquiry must remain on the child and her best interests. These motions are not a vehicle for determining which parent has behaved more poorly, acted more reasonably, or bears greater responsibility for the ongoing conflict. The court's task is to determine what arrangements are in the child's best interests.
[8] Neither party complied with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings – Ontario Superior Court of Justice respecting page limits for short motions.
[9] The Applicant did not upload an affidavit of service for her Notice of Motion. As a result, it is unclear which party should properly be treated as having delivered the primary motion materials and, therefore, which party was entitled to file reply evidence. In circumstances where a responding party brings a cross-motion seeking substantially related relief—in this case, an expansion of the Respondent's parenting time—it is not appropriate for each party to file a 12-page affidavit, a further 12-page responding affidavit to the other party's motion, and then an additional reply affidavit.
[10] There should have been a total of three affidavits from the parties: a primary affidavit from each party and a reply affidavit from the party entitled to reply, together with the opportunity for each party to file one five-page affidavit from a third-party witness. Instead, each party filed three affidavits, some of which exceeded the applicable page limits. In addition, the Applicant filed a short affidavit from her mother. Much of the evidence contained in the responding materials was duplicative of evidence already before the court. Rather than assisting the court, these repetitive materials increased the volume of the record, complicated the issues, and added unnecessarily to the parties' costs.
[11] The volume of materials on the motion should have required a special appointment, but given the urgent nature of the travel I made an exception. Counsel are reminded that this is contrary to the practice direction and cannot be repeated if future motions are brought without first bringing a motion for leave of the court to exceed page limits.
[12] I also have significant concerns regarding the content of the affidavits filed by both parties. The materials are replete with hearsay, opinion evidence, speculation, inflammatory and hyperbolic allegations, and information that is irrelevant to the issues requiring determination on this motion. Numerous exhibits attached to the affidavits are similarly inadmissible. To the extent that the parties rely upon evidence that is contrary to the applicable rules of evidence, I place no weight upon it.
[13] The court expects parties in parenting disputes to focus their evidence on relevant, admissible facts. Much of the evidence filed on these motions falls well short of that standard. The manner in which the parties have chosen to litigate these issues may also be relevant to the determination of costs following the disposition of the remaining issues before the court.
The Respondent’s Affidavit of June 29, 2026
[14] Prior to commencement of the motion, Counsel for the Applicant raised concerns about certain paragraphs of the Respondent’s materials which she submitted were improper as containing summary of judicial comments made at a previous court hearing and information disclosed at a conference. She indicated that this was highlighted in her confirmation. No confirmation was uploaded to Case Center. I have reviewed the affidavits and will not consider the statements made about what occurred during the case conference of November 19, 2026.
[15] Aside from the paragraphs that are argumentative, hyperbolic, and meant only to cast the Applicant in a negative light, I also note the following evidentiary issues concerning several exhibits attached to the Affidavit.
[16] As Exhibit “A”, the Respondent attached an affidavit sworn by a neighbour on November 14, 2025. An affidavit attached to another person's affidavit is not admissible evidence. See Re Saskin, 2024 ONSC 3488, para. 191. I place no weight on Exhibit "A".
[17] The Respondent attaches as Exhibit “C”, photographs depicting himself with the child. Photographs may be relevant to provide evidence of a material fact, such as visible injuries, safety concerns, or compliance/breach of a court order. It is inappropriate to use photographs and videos of children merely to show that a parent and child are happy together, or to demonstrate general parenting competence. Photographs of ordinary parenting interactions have little evidentiary value unless they relate directly to an issue before the court. Affidavit evidence should focus on relevant facts rather than emotional appeals. I therefore attach little, if any, weight to these photographs.
[18] The Respondent attaches as Exhibit “D” video recordings which he states are “some videos of Sofia while she is in my care.” Admissibility of a video depends on:
a. its accuracy in truly representing the facts;
b. its fairness and absence of any intention to mislead; and
c. its verification on oath by a person capable of doing so.
[19] The Respondent has not provided evidence sufficient to satisfy these foundational requirements. In the absence of proper authentication and admissibility evidence, I decline to admit the videos into evidence and have not viewed them.
The Applicant’s Affidavit of June 29, 2026
[20] Like the Respondent's materials, portions of the Applicant's affidavit are equally argumentative, hyperbolic, and directed more toward portraying the Respondent in a negative light than providing relevant evidence concerning the issues before the court. I also have concerns regarding several of the exhibits attached to the Applicant's affidavit.
[21] The Applicant attaches correspondence from her counsel as Exhibits A, B, C, E, D, H, and K. A lawyer’s letter contains argument, advocacy and legal positions rather than admissible evidence. The information contained in the letter should have been tendered to prove facts that should be proven by direct evidence. Unless a letter contains an admission by the opposing party, it is evidence only that the letter was sent, not that the statements made within it are true. Allegations made by counsel against an opposing party carry little, if any, evidentiary weight. See Alsawwah v. Afifi, 2020 ONSC 2883. Accordingly, I place no weight on these letters for the truth of their contents.
[22] I also note that the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings expressly discourages the filing of voluminous exhibits and encourages parties to attach only those documents that are genuinely necessary for the determination of the issues before the court. Many of the Applicant's exhibits were difficult to read because they had been significantly reduced in size. In several instances, the text was clearly smaller than a 12-point font. Perhaps this was done to comply with the ten-page limit applicable to exhibits. However, reducing document content to an extent that compromises readability undermines its usefulness and is inconsistent with the intent of the Practice Direction.
[23] I also find the aforementioned exhibits containing text messages unhelpful. They were small, some blurry, and lacked context because none of the exhibits included the complete text conversation. I also give these texts little or no weight.
Other Responding and Reply Affidavits
[24] The same concerns identified with respect to the parties' primary affidavits also arise in relation to the secondary affidavits filed on this motion.
[25] Much of the evidence contained in those affidavits consists of hearsay, argument, speculation, and opinion evidence from individuals who have not been qualified as experts. In several instances, the affidavits go beyond recounting alleged observations and instead offer conclusions regarding the parties' parenting abilities, motives, credibility, and the child's best interests.
[26] To the extent that any of the secondary affidavits contain hearsay, argument, speculation, or non-expert opinion evidence that is contrary to the rules of evidence, I place no weight on that information. I have considered only those portions of the affidavits that contain relevant and admissible evidence directed to the issues requiring determination on this motion.
Brief Background
[27] The parties were married on July 9, 2022 and separated on October 12, 2024. They have one child, Sofia, age 18 months, who was born approximately two months after the parties separated.
[28] The Respondent is unemployed and the Applicant will be returning to work in August following an extended maternity leave.
[29] Consent to travel has been an ongoing quarrel between the parties. The Applicant requested consent to travel to Bosnia in 2025 and to Michigan in 2025 and 2026. None of these trips occurred because the Applicant was not given consent. I have insufficient evidence to make a determination on whether withholding consent to travel to Michigan was justified.
Travel to Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia
[30] The Applicant submits that the proposed travel is in Sofia's best interests. She argues that generally, travel is beneficial to children, and that specifically, this trip would provide Sofia with an opportunity to attend two family weddings, meet extended family members, and experience her cultural heritage, including exposure to the language spoken by members of her family. The Applicant further asserts that the travel would be of personal significance to her, as it would be her first opportunity to visit Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia in approximately seven years. She submits generally that benefit flows to the child when the primary caregiver is content.
[31] The Applicant first requested consent to travel on April 6, 2026 and the consent was refused on the basis that the Respondent refused unless the Applicant agreed to eight consecutive overnights.
[32] The Respondent’s opposition can be summarized as follows:
− He will go 26 days without seeing the child;
− The itinerary is onerous and involves significant travel between multiple cities and countries;
− The itinerary lacks sufficient detail and specificity.
[33] The Respondent’s position is that he is not leveraging an increase in his parenting time against the Applicant’s request to travel, but rather it is appropriate to negotiate summer parenting time for both parents contemporaneously.
[34] However, this submission contradicts other statements made in his affidavit where he deposes that he “quite rightly told” the Applicant that she did not have his permission to take the child to Bosnia in February 2025 because she unilaterally chose the dates for the travel. I disagree with the Respondent’s characterization that he was “quite right” in his position. Parents must communicate and make reasonable efforts to consult one another regarding significant decisions affecting a child. The fact that one parent initially proposes travel dates which will interfere with the other’s parenting time does not, in itself, justify a refusal of consent. The focus must remain on whether the proposed travel is in the child's best interests.
Analysis
[35] The Applicant brought her application for decision-making responsibility and primary residence of Sofia under the Divorce Act and, alternatively, under the Children's Law Reform Act. The Divorce Act is the applicable legislation under which the analysis of the Applicant’s motion must be undertaken.
[36] The Divorce Act provides that in determining any aspect of a parenting order, the court is to take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage. I have considered s. 16.
[37] Additionally, while I am mandated to consider all factors related to Sofia’s circumstances in determining Sofia’s best interests, my primary consideration must be her physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. I must also take into account factors relating to family violence.
[38] In my view, the following claims are most relevant for me to consider in making my determination about what order to make in Sofia’s best interests:
a. Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia are signatories to the Hague Convention;
b. The child will have the opportunity to meet members of her extended family;
c. The child will have the ability to experience the mother’s cultural heritage and culture;
d. The child’s young age and the extent of the travel;
e. The impact on frequency/consistency of the Respondent’s parenting time; and
f. The lack of information and specificity in the itinerary provided to the father.
Hague
[39] The Respondent has not identified any specific safety concerns regarding the destinations, any risk that the child will not be returned to Ontario, nor any concrete concern arising from the travel itself.
Extended Family – Cultural Ties
[40] International travel can be beneficial to a child by strengthening family relationships, exposing the child to cultural and family heritage and allowing participation in important family events. See Barritt v. Barritt, 2016 ONSC 4746.
[41] In response to the position that it would be beneficial for the child to meet with her extended family, the Respondent seeks to diminish those relationships. He notes that the Applicant has not seen many of her family members for several years and points out that Sofia saw the Applicant's brother only twice in 2025. I do not find this submission persuasive.
[42] The fact that family members have been separated by distance and have had limited opportunities for in-person contact does not lessen the value of those familial relationships. To the contrary, it often explains why travel is necessary. It is unsurprising that family members residing abroad would have fewer opportunities to spend time with Sofia than relatives who live locally. The proposed trip would provide Sofia with an opportunity to establish and strengthen connections with members of her maternal extended family that would otherwise be difficult to maintain.
[43] The evidence suggests that the child would be introduced to family members in positive and celebratory circumstances, including attendance at two weddings. Such events provide meaningful opportunities for a child to develop a sense of family identity, belonging, and connection to her extended family network despite her young age.
[44] The Respondent's materials indicate that he values opportunities for Sofia to experience her cultural background. In fact, as an alternative proposal, the Respondent requests that Sofia spend a week in Greece with him immediately following the proposed Bosnia trip. Implicit in that request is an acknowledgment that exposing Sofia to her cultural heritage can be beneficial.
Lack of Information Sharing
[45] The Respondent also submits that the proposed itinerary is incomplete and lacks sufficient specificity. I agree with the Respondent's concern. In her affidavit, the Applicant provides a general itinerary identifying the cities she intends to visit with Sofia during the proposed trip. However, she does not provide flight details, the addresses of the accommodations where she and the child will be residing, whether they will be staying with family members or in hotels, or the means by which they will be travelling between destinations.
[46] While this information would have been helpful and should ordinarily be provided when seeking court authorization for international travel with a child, I do not find the deficiencies in the itinerary to be sufficient to justify refusing the travel request.
[47] The omission of more detailed travel information is a factor that the court may address through conditions attached to a travel order rather than by refusing permission altogether.
Extent of Travel and Impact on Child
[48] The Applicant led little evidence about the impact that the proposed travel may have on the child. The Respondent submits that these concerns are significant. He points to evidence that the Applicant has resisted certain parenting arrangements because of the distance between the parties' residences. He argues that this position is difficult to reconcile with a proposal that would involve Sofia travelling between multiple cities and countries over a three-week period.
[49] There is no evidence that the Applicant makes decisions about the child’s day-to-day care that are contrary to the child’s interests. In light of the absence of this evidence, I am satisfied that the Applicant would not undertake a trip that would be inconsistent with Sofia’s best interests. The child will be with her primary caregiver and the maternal grandmother, and she will be adequately cared for while away.
Impact on Father’s Parenting Time
[50] Under the parties' current parenting schedule, the Respondent will miss three regularly scheduled overnight parenting periods as a result of the proposed travel.
[51] The loss of parenting time is a relevant consideration but must be viewed in context. The travel will not detrimentally impact the child’s relationship with the Respondent. The Respondent’s evidence is that he has a strong bond with the child. I accept that evidence. A secure parent-child relationship is not so fragile that it will be materially impaired by a three-week absence occasioned by an international family vacation.
[52] While the Respondent understandably wishes to maximize his time with Sofia, the temporary interruption to the regular parenting schedule must be balanced against the benefits of the proposed travel.
Disclosure of Itinerary
[53] I agree with the Respondent that the travel information provided by the Applicant is lacking in important details. Meaningful disclosure of travel details promotes transparency between parents and assists in alleviating legitimate concerns arising from a child's international travel.
[54] Accordingly, an order will be made requiring the Applicant to provide the Respondent with further particulars of the trip, including flight information, accommodation details, and any other reasonably available travel information, to ensure that the Respondent is aware of Sofia's whereabouts throughout the travel period and is able to contact her if necessary in the event of an emergency.
Order:
The Applicant is permitted to travel with the child to Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia from July 14, 2026 to August 6, 2026 without the written consent of the Respondent.
The Applicant shall provide detailed particulars of the travel itinerary, such details to include:
a. A telephone number and email address where the child’s maternal grandmother can be reached during travel.
b. Details of the flights to and from Canada
c. Addresses where the child will be sleeping overnight.
d. Particulars of how the child will be travelling between cities during the trip if by train/bus/plane, a photo or screenshot of the ticket will be provided to the Respondent
e. If any of the plans change, the change will be immediately communicated to the Respondent.
Every day while on vacation, the Applicant shall send to the Respondent (through a third party) a photo of the child taken on that day.
The balance of the issues raised in the motions dated June 29, 2026 are adjourned to July 14, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. virtually.
[55] The Applicant may provide a draft order to my attention by email to agnes.yang@ontario.ca with a copy to the Respondent’s counsel for expedited issuance.
“Justice Stephanie J. Ouellette”
Justice Stephanie J. Ouellette
Date: July 10, 2026