Victor Mitrow

The applicant was completely successful on an urgent motion for a parenting order after the respondent biological parents withheld the child from him.

The applicant sought costs of $20,000.

The respondents argued for no costs due to limited financial means.

The court found the respondents acted unreasonably by withholding the child and pursuing an ill-informed theory that only biological parents should have parenting time.

The court fixed costs at $10,000, payable $5,000 by each respondent, with a payment plan for the mother.

Following the respondent's substantial success on interim family law motions, she sought costs of $10,000.

The applicant, who was self-represented during the motions, argued that parties should bear their own costs or that any award should be reduced due to his impecuniosity.

The court found the applicant behaved unreasonably by filing excessive materials, which increased costs.

While acknowledging the applicant's financial situation, the court held it did not provide immunity from costs but justified a payment plan.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 payable in installments.

The respondent was entirely successful on motions regarding parenting time and child support, and sought costs of $25,493.

The applicant opposed the quantum, citing his recent job loss and limited financial means.

The court found the applicant had behaved unreasonably by refusing to pay voluntary child support, forcing a needless motion.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $15,000, allowing the applicant to pay in monthly installments, and ordered the costs enforceable by the Director as a support order.

The applicant, who raised the child as his own for the first year of the child's life, sought an urgent interim parenting order after a DNA test revealed he was not the biological father.

The biological mother and the newly identified biological father opposed the applicant having any parenting time, arguing the child should only have two parents.

The court rejected the biological parents' position, finding that the applicant was the child's psychological father and primary caregiver post-separation.

Applying the best interests factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the applicant alternating weeks of parenting time.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's motion to change a final child support order.

The applicant, a self-employed cab driver, sought to reduce his child support to zero, arguing his declared income was below the threshold.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the applicant failed to present evidence of changed circumstances to explain why the previously imputed income was no longer appropriate.

The court dismissed the motion to change, subject to a minor consent variation regarding child support during the respondent's travel periods.

The respondent's request to require the applicant to obtain leave for future motions was dismissed.

The parties separated in February 2026 and have two young children.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief regarding parenting and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The mother sought primary care and exclusive possession, citing the father's extensive marijuana use, unemployment, and threatening text messages.

The father sought decision-making responsibility and to reside in the matrimonial home with the children.

The court found it in the children's best interests to reside primarily with the mother, given her role as primary caregiver and concerns over the father's marijuana use and threatening behaviour.

The father was granted parenting time in the community, with restrictions on substance use.

The mother was granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home due to financial constraints and the children's need for stability.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting and child support orders regarding their 26-month-old child.

The father sought equal parenting time and set-off child support, while the mother sought primary care and table child support, alleging a history of family violence.

The court found the mother was the primary caregiver and accepted her evidence of the father's aggressive and threatening behaviour.

The court ordered the child to remain in the mother's primary care with specified parenting time for the father.

The father was ordered to pay table child support and his proportionate share of daycare expenses, with income imputed to him following a recent job loss.

This decision addresses interim parenting and relocation in a family law dispute.

The mother sought to relocate the parties’ five-year-old child from London, Ontario to the Turks and Caicos Islands, where she had secured employment.

The father opposed the move and sought primary care of the child.

The court reviewed the parties’ conflicting evidence regarding caregiving, family violence, and the child’s best interests.

Applying the Children’s Law Reform Act and relevant case law, the court ordered that the child remain with the father in Ontario pending trial, with extended summer parenting time for the mother in Turks and Caicos.

The court emphasized the need for stability, the unresolved allegations of family violence, and the importance of a full trial to resolve factual disputes.

The court considered whether it has jurisdiction to make a final order for corollary relief under the Divorce Act before a divorce is granted.

After reviewing conflicting authorities, the court concluded that, according to binding appellate authority, a Canadian court cannot make a final order for corollary relief under the Divorce Act unless a divorce has been granted.

The court also addressed the correction of a previous order that was mistakenly made under the Divorce Act before a divorce claim was included, and provided guidance for future cases to avoid orders made without jurisdiction.

The court considered a motion by the respondent, Ms. Stephenson, to amend her answer to assert trust claims regarding the matrimonial home, more than four years after the application was commenced.

The court reviewed the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the applicable legal principles regarding amendments to pleadings, including the presumption of prejudice arising from inordinate and unexplained delay.

The court found that Ms. Stephenson failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her delay, that the amendment would cause prejudice to the applicant not compensable by costs or adjournment, and that the interests of justice required the matter to proceed to trial on the existing pleadings.

The motion to amend was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows a high-conflict family law trial in which the applicant, Monica Cecilia Izquierdo Rubio, was awarded sole decision-making responsibility for the parties’ child, with the respondent, Martin Berendson Leigh, receiving no parenting time except under strict conditions.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the reasonableness and proportionality of legal fees, and the impact of recent amendments to the Family Law Rules.

The respondent’s unreasonable and, in part, bad-faith conduct is detailed, including breaches of court orders, manipulation of evidence, and family violence.

The court fixes costs at $100,000, inclusive of HST, with $10,000 enforceable as a support order.

The applicant mother fled Peru with the parties' child due to the respondent father's severe and prolonged family violence.

The father followed them to Canada and engaged in a campaign of harassment, cyberbullying, and vexatious litigation.

Following the dismissal of the father's Hague Convention application, the court conducted a 7-week trial to determine parenting, child support, and protection issues.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with no parenting time for the father except under strict conditions initiated by the mother or child.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the father for child support, issued a final restraining order, and declared the father a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought to vary child support back to January 1, 2021, based on the respondent's increased income.

The respondent agreed to some historical adjustment but sought to pay no ongoing child support due to alleged health reasons.

The court determined the cessation dates for child support for the three eldest children.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed income to him for 2023 ($25,000) and from July 1, 2024 ($30,000), rejecting his claim of inability to work due to health issues.

The court calculated child support arrears, adjusting for income changes and changes in dependent status, fixing total arrears at $18,000 as of August 31, 2024.

The court declined to order a payment plan for arrears, citing the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure and plan for increased obligations.

Ongoing child support was set at $459 per month for the two youngest children.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim child support in a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent sought to impute income to the applicant, who had left full-time employment to attend teacher's college.

The court found the applicant was intentionally under-employed but that her educational goals were reasonable.

Applying the Drygala framework, the court imputed income to the applicant based on a percentage of her previous earnings and ordered the respondent to pay $425 per month in interim child support, considering the significant disparity in the parties' financial circumstances.

The applicant sought urgent interim relief, including exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a vesting order, and an order for the respondent to pay mortgage arrears.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession and ordered the respondent to immediately reinstate the mortgage by paying all arrears.

The request for a vesting order was dismissed without prejudice, as the evidence did not justify it at this early stage, and the parties had agreed to list and sell the matrimonial home.

The decision also set out detailed terms for the sale process.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order under s.13(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act declaring he is not the parent of the applicant's child, and for summary judgment dismissing the applicant's claims for child support.

The respondent relied on two negative DNA test results.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the DNA test reports were inadmissible as evidence because they were not introduced pursuant to a court order under s.17.2(1) of the CLRA, nor were they accompanied by an affidavit from the expert who prepared them, or compliance with the Family Law Rules regarding expert opinion evidence (e.g., expert qualifications or acknowledgement of duty).

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the respondent to bring a further motion with proper evidence.

The applicant was successful on a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and sought costs of $8,000.

The respondent opposed, citing her unemployment and the applicant's failure to pay support.

The court fixed costs at $6,500, finding the respondent's resistance to the sale unreasonable but reducing the amount to exclude time spent on a related support motion.

Given the applicant's substantial admitted support arrears, the court ordered that the costs not be payable until all issues in the case are finally resolved to allow for potential set-off.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought extensive financial disclosure, interim spousal support (adjourned), to strike a valuation report, a non-dissipation order, and to bar the respondent from filing further motions.

The respondent also sought disclosure from the applicant.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, dismissing most of the applicant's requests as baseless, redundant, or disproportionate.

The applicant's claims to strike a valuation report and for a non-dissipation order were also dismissed due to lack of credible evidence.

The respondent's requests for the applicant's financial and income-related disclosure were largely granted.

This case involves cross-motions in a family law dispute following a divorce order incorporating minutes of settlement.

The applicant sought to deduct alleged damages to the matrimonial home from the respondent's equalization and spousal support payment, and also sought punitive damages.

The respondent sought the immediate release of her $190,000 payment.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the damage claims were not properly before the Family Court as they were not pleaded and the applicant failed to comply with a condition precedent in the divorce order requiring a written estimate of deliberate damage exceeding $5,000 from an appraiser or realtor.

The respondent's motion for payment was allowed.

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The parties separated in 2017 and the respondent mother remained in the home.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant that would defeat his prima facie right to a sale under the Partition Act.

The court ordered the home to be listed and sold, with a $100,000 holdback from the applicant's share of the net proceeds to secure arrears of child and spousal support.