Victor Mitrow

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device.

He argued that the police officer provided faulty instructions on how to blow into the device and that he lacked the requisite mens rea to refuse.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably concluded the officer's instructions were clear and that the appellant intentionally failed to provide a suitable sample after six attempts, followed by an outright refusal on the seventh demand.

The party seeking costs was largely successful in setting aside notices of garnishment issued for child support and section 7 expenses.

He sought costs of $9,568.74 on a full-indemnity basis, while the opposing party argued for no costs or a maximum of $350.

The court noted that both parties lost focus on proportionality, expending time and effort disproportionate to the issues at stake.

Finding the opposing party's conduct unreasonable but not rising to bad faith, the court awarded fixed costs of $2,500.

Following interim motions where the respondent was largely successful in obtaining spousal and child support, the court determined costs.

Both parties were penalized for unreasonable behaviour: the respondent for failing to provide timely educational disclosure for an adult child, and the applicant for unilaterally removing the respondent from his benefits plan.

The applicant was ordered to pay net costs of $4,000.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide ongoing educational disclosure for the children as a condition of receiving child support.

The defendant bankruptcy trustee brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for conversion and negligence on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff claimed a half-interest in a boat that her bankrupt husband had purportedly gifted to their son, which the trustee subsequently seized and sold.

The court found that the trustee took possession of the boat on May 30, 2011, and the statement of claim was issued exactly two years later on May 30, 2013, making it within the limitation period.

The court also noted that the alleged conversion likely occurred when the boat was sold, not when possession was taken.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The respondent husband brought a motion for interim spousal support despite a marriage contract containing mutual waivers of support.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing the contract barred support.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the contract, noting the husband lacked independent legal advice and signed it two days before the wedding.

The court imputed an income of $15,000 to the husband and ordered the wife to pay $600 per month in interim spousal support and maintain his health benefits.

This was a costs endorsement following a family law motion concerning compliance with undertakings and an advance for legal fees or release of funds from trust.

The court held that the moving party achieved partial success and was presumptively entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules.

Applying the reasonableness factors, the court awarded costs for the undertakings issue but reduced recovery on the funding issue because the moving party had failed to make timely financial disclosure.

Final costs were fixed at $2,500 inclusive of HST and assessable disbursements.

In a combined child protection and status review trial involving four children, the court found the youngest child in need of protection and concluded that Crown wardship was the least intrusive order consistent with the best interests of all four children.

The evidence established chronic neglect of the home environment, inability to manage the children’s significant behavioural needs, abusive discipline, repeated school lateness, persistent enmeshment of the children in adult conflict, and longstanding unresolved mental health and grief issues affecting parenting capacity.

The court accepted the psychologist’s evidence that the parent’s deficits were deep-rooted and not amenable to change in the foreseeable future, and that supervision could not adequately protect the children.

Access to the parent was denied for the two youngest children, supervised access was preserved for the two eldest children, and inter-sibling access was ordered for all children.

In this family costs endorsement following a successful appeal in a grandparent access dispute, the court held that the respondent grandmother's failure to disclose an existing final parenting order in the Ontario Court of Justice was patently unreasonable conduct under the Family Law Rules.

Although the successful appellant was presumptively entitled to costs, the court rejected submission that automatic offer-to-settle consequences under r. 18(14) applied because the offers sought relief outside the scope of the appeal.

Applying rr. 24(1), 24(4), 24(5), 24(10), and 24(11), the court found the bill of costs excessive, excluded time unrelated to the appeal, and fixed reasonable appeal costs at $7,500 inclusive.

The court then reduced that amount by $1,500 because the successful appellant had also acted unreasonably by failing to attend in the lower court, and ordered payment of $6,000 inclusive.

On an interim family law motion, the applicant sought spousal support from a high-income self-employed respondent whose income flowed through a corporation.

The court undertook a detailed interim analysis of corporate income, added back portions of motor vehicle and entertainment expenses, deducted prior spousal support and grossed-up notional child support for children in the respondent’s care, and declined broader corporate adjustments better left to trial.

The court also drew an adverse inference from the applicant’s failure to file medical evidence supporting total inability to work and imputed modest income to her starting in 2014.

Interim spousal support was ordered retroactively to separation at varying monthly amounts for 2013, 2014, and prospectively for 2015, with credit for amounts already paid and arrears payable within ten days.

In a custody and access proceeding between a father and a 16-year-old mother, the court raised the developing issue of whether a minor parent who is a party is entitled to her own legal representation rather than only duty counsel assistance.

The court also considered whether the Children's Lawyer could or should act as the minor party's representative under r. 4(3) of the Family Law Rules, in light of the Divisional Court's discussion of "special parties" in C.M.M. The mediated interim settlement was not approved because the court concluded that the representation issue had to be resolved first.

The matter was adjourned for further submissions, with notice directed to the Children's Lawyer, the Attorney General of Ontario, Justice for Children and Youth, and Legal Aid Ontario.

On a consent status review application in a child protection matter, the court terminated an existing six-month supervision order and directed that the child be placed in the custody of the maternal grandparents under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court was satisfied the proposed placement was in the child’s best interests, given the mother’s significant history of instability and neglect-related concerns, the father’s prolonged absence, and the child’s stable and nurturing relationship with the grandparents.

The decision also addressed procedural difficulties arising from the deeming of a s. 57.1 order as an order under the Children's Law Reform Act, and directed that a separate order issue in the protection file with the grandparents named as applicants.

The court further required service on the society in any future variation proceeding commenced before the child’s 16th birthday and included supervised access for the mother while denying access to the father.

On competing family law motions, the court determined interim child support, interim spousal support, a claim for interest on delayed settlement payments, and a claim arising from removal of the responding party from group medical benefits.

The court fixed the moving party's income at $100,000 and the responding party's income at $35,000 for interim purposes, ordered child support for two children and spousal support effective September 1, 2014, and denied a claim for support for one child during July and August 2014 without prejudice to trial.

The court dismissed the interest claim as unsuitable for determination on an interlocutory motion and reserved it to trial.

The court also ordered reimbursement of $648.95 in medical expenses and immediate reinstatement of the responding party to the moving party's benefit plans.

In a garnishment hearing arising from a family support order, the court considered whether notices of garnishment could enforce disputed section 7 expenses and future periodic child support out of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court held that section 7 amounts must be readily ascertainable and undisputed before garnishment may issue, and set aside the garnishment relating to hockey and university expenses because prior notice, consent, and complete supporting disclosure had not been established.

The court nevertheless permitted the amount already garnished for university expenses to be retained as a credit against the payor’s eventual obligation.

Although garnishment may attach future periodic child support under Rule 29, the court directed that no further amounts be garnished in the circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief, which resulted in a final consent order for child support and the dismissal of her claims for interim spousal support and an order directing the respondent to return to work.

The respondent sought costs, arguing he was entitled to the automatic cost consequences of Rule 18(14) based on his offers to settle.

The court found the respondent did not meet the burden under Rule 18(14) because his offers were either less favourable than the order or failed to comply with the timing requirements.

The court awarded the respondent costs for his partial success but reduced the amount due to his unreasonable failure to disclose a severance payment, fixing costs at $4,746 payable at the conclusion of the case.

Following a successful motion by the estate trustee to set aside $100,000 from an estate for anticipated legal fees, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $10,000 in costs, which the responding party argued were excessive.

The court applied the reasonableness principles under the Family Law Rules and reduced the claimed fees, disallowing a substantial Westlaw research disbursement due to lack of evidence that it represented a proper out‑of‑pocket expense.

The court awarded a reduced lump sum costs amount and ordered that payment be deferred until the proceeding is finally resolved.

The decision also clarifies that a losing party is not required to file a bill of costs when challenging the opposing party’s claim.

Following a successful second trial in an insurance coverage dispute concerning aircraft damage, the court addressed costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought increased pre‑judgment interest under s.130 of the Courts of Justice Act and substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10 based on an earlier offer to settle.

The court exercised its discretion to increase pre‑judgment interest to 1% due to changes in market rates and the lengthy litigation, fixing interest at $7,000.

However, the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the offer to settle equaled the eventual judgment and included substantial indemnity provisions that made the judgment less favourable than the offer.

Costs for the second trial were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction for the use of two senior counsel.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and an order directing the respondent husband to return to full-time employment and not retire during the course of the lawsuit.

The parties had previously signed a separation agreement resolving all issues, which was filed with the court.

The court treated the motion as an interim variation of a final spousal support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency, hardship, or that the continuation of the existing support order was incongruous and absurd.

The court also found no merit in ordering the respondent not to retire, noting that imputation of income could be addressed at trial.

The insured sought recovery under an aircraft insurance policy after a twin‑engine aircraft crashed during an attempted takeoff using only one functioning engine.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the occurrence was not an “accident” and alternatively that the insured breached a policy condition requiring protection of the aircraft from further loss.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence defining an accident as an “unlooked‑for mishap or occurrence,” the court held that negligent conduct may still constitute an accident unless the insured deliberately assumed a known risk.

Although the pilot’s decision to attempt a single‑engine takeoff was negligent and ill‑advised, the evidence did not establish recklessness or deliberate risk assumption sufficient to remove the occurrence from coverage.

The court also found no breach of the policy’s aircraft protection condition.

Judgment was granted for the insured.

The applicant sought an annulment on the basis that the individual who solemnized the marriage was not authorized under the Marriage Act.

The court considered the curative provision in s. 31 of the Marriage Act, which validates a marriage solemnized in good faith if the parties intended to comply with the Act, were not legally disqualified from marrying, and lived together and cohabited as a married couple after the ceremony.

Although the parties lived in different countries and spent limited time physically together due to immigration and visa constraints, the evidence showed they maintained a genuine marital relationship and cohabited during several visits.

The court found that the statutory requirements of s. 31 were met and that the marriage was therefore valid despite the officiant’s lack of authority.

The request for an annulment was dismissed.

In a child protection proceeding, the society brought a motion under s. 74(3) of the Child and Family Services Act seeking production of a psychological assessment report prepared regarding a parent.

The parent had initially consented to the assessment but later withdrew consent for the society to obtain the report.

The court held that the statutory threshold for production—whether the record may be relevant to the proceeding—was not onerous and was met because the report was prepared specifically to assess the parent’s mental health and its impact on parenting.

The parent filed no evidence opposing production or supporting redactions.

The court ordered the assessor to produce the report and permitted disclosure to counsel, subject to statutory confidentiality restrictions.