Valeriy Kozyrev

In a parenting and child support trial concerning a young child, the court held that professionally supervised parenting time was necessary because the respondent parent’s volatility, family violence, mental health instability, and dysregulation created emotional and psychological safety risks for the child.

The court found the applicant parent had not consistently facilitated the child’s relationship with the respondent, but concluded that unsupervised parenting time would not presently be in the child’s best interests.

Monthly two-hour agency-supervised visits were ordered, together with strict no-direct-contact communication terms.

For child support, the court accepted the parties’ agreed imputed income for 2023 and 2025, declined to impute income for 2024 because of legitimate disability-related unemployability, fixed arrears at $1,516, and ordered repayment at 10% of ODSP income.

The applicant father sought the return of the parties' four-year-old child to the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent mother in Canada.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence, finding it to be the UK.

However, the court found that the father, through his actions, had consented and acquiesced to the child's retention in Canada, thereby triggering an exception under Article 13(a) of the Convention.

Consequently, the application for the child's return was dismissed, and the court assumed jurisdiction over the matter.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of his removal to Bulgaria pending an application for leave and judicial review of the CBSA's refusal of his deferral request.

He claimed medical issues made him unfit to fly and that he needed to support his pregnant sister.

The Court found there was a serious issue but insufficient evidence of irreparable harm, noting he had been assessed as fit to fly and failed to mention his sister in earlier interviews.

The balance of convenience favoured the Minister's duty to enforce removal orders.

The motion for a stay of removal was dismissed.