Svetlana Cocieru

The parties brought a consent motion in an appeal from the Ontario Court of Justice, seeking to set aside the lower court's order and implement a new settlement.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that it would not exercise its appellate jurisdiction to set aside an order on consent without a showing of reversible error.

The court emphasized that any settlement on the merits of the original proceeding should be implemented in the court where that proceeding is being carried, after which the appeal could be dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The parties were unable to reach an agreement on costs after the appeal was dismissed.

The court reviewed written submissions and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal in the amount of $9,200, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This appeal concerned the recognition of a foreign divorce obtained in Russia.

The appellant (husband) sought divorce in Russia shortly after separating from the respondent (wife) in Canada, where spousal support is not generally available under Russian law.

The respondent sought to set aside the Russian divorce in Ontario to pursue spousal support.

The trial judge refused to recognize the Russian divorce, finding the appellant engaged in "unfair forum-shopping tactics" to avoid spousal support obligations under Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that "unfair forum-shopping tactics" constitute a distinct exception to the recognition of foreign judgments, separate from the public policy defence focused on "repugnant laws" as articulated in Beals v. Saldanha.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a Russian divorce order obtained by the respondent shortly after their separation.

The parties had immigrated to Canada in 2018.

The respondent filed for divorce in Russia three days after leaving the matrimonial home in Ontario, knowing that Russian law would not require him to pay spousal support.

The court found that the respondent preemptively sought the foreign divorce to circumvent his spousal support obligations under Ontario law.

Applying the public policy exception, the court refused to recognize the Russian divorce order in Ontario.

This is an appeal from an order granting primary residence of the parties' child to the respondent mother.

The appellant father argued the trial judge erred by not considering the impact of relocation on parenting time, failing to apply mandatory Divorce Act provisions regarding relocation, and presumptively basing the decision on the mother being the primary caregiver.

The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error, affirming that the trial judge properly considered the child's best interests, including the impact of relocation, and that the appellant was not prejudiced by any notice defect.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the child's primary residence to her home in Barrie and enroll him in a local school.

The respondent father opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo of week-about parenting with the child attending school virtually in Pembroke due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the mother failed to prove a move to Barrie was in the child's best interests, noting the child's established connections in Pembroke.

Applying recent jurisprudence, the court held there is a presumption that in-person schooling is in a child's best interest absent compelling evidence to the contrary, which the father failed to provide.

The court ordered the child to reside primarily with the father and attend school in person in Pembroke, with the mother having alternate weekend access.