Victor Mitrow

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to deal with the proceeds of sale from the jointly-owned matrimonial home, specifically requesting a substantial holdback from the respondent's share, primarily for prospective lump sum spousal support, as well as child support arrears and post-separation adjustments.

The parties had already agreed on an equalization payment.

The court dismissed the request for a holdback related to prospective lump sum spousal support, finding insufficient evidence to justify such an award, but ordered a $35,000 holdback for post-separation adjustments, child support arrears, and spousal support arrears.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions.

The applicant sought to dismiss previous court orders and trial proceedings, while the respondent sought orders for the children's return to London, deposit of their travel documents, and restrictions on their removal from London.

The court found the applicant's motion lacked urgency and merit, and her conduct demonstrated non-compliance with prior orders regarding the children's residence.

The respondent's motion was granted, ordering the children's return to London, deposit of their passports and birth certificates with the court, and strict conditions on future travel and residence changes.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

The applicants, the child's paternal grandmother and father, and the respondent mother brought a consent motion for a final parenting order.

The court declined to grant the order on the current record, noting deficiencies in the evidence, including the grandmother's failure to provide a proper police records check under the Children's Law Reform Act, missing affidavits, and conflicting evidence regarding Children's Aid Society involvement.

The court issued a temporary order requiring the parties to file additional materials before the consent order could be considered.

This decision addresses costs following a nine-day trial primarily concerning parenting issues.

The applicant (father) was found to be more successful on the primary residence issue but not on decision-making responsibility, resulting in divided success.

Both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour, including family violence and financial abuse by the father, and non-disclosure and impaired driving by the mother.

The court considered the divided success, the unreasonable conduct of both parties, and the mother's limited financial resources (ODSP benefits).

Despite the father's claim for $105,000, the court awarded a modest costs award of $7,000, payable in installments, finding it just and reasonable given all factors.

The father brought a motion to change to enforce parenting time and a subsequent motion for interim primary care, which was dismissed.

He later withdrew his motion to change.

The court awarded the mother $22,500 in costs for the dismissed interim motion, finding she was the successful party.

However, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs for the withdrawn motion to change, finding the father acted reasonably in bringing it to enforce existing parenting orders after reconciliation counselling failed.

The parties brought cross-motions for an interim order regarding which school their four-year-old daughter would attend for junior kindergarten.

The mother, a teacher at Assumption Catholic Elementary School, sought to enroll the child there.

The father sought to enroll the child at St. David Catholic Elementary School, located in his catchment area.

The court ordered the child to attend the mother's choice of school, finding it in the child's best interests due to the avoidance of bussing, the mother's ability to respond to medical emergencies, and her availability to attend school events.

This case involved a two-week trial concerning a motion to change parenting provisions and child support for two special needs children.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and increased child support, while the respondent father sought shared decision-making and expanded parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's conduct, which led to the withdrawal of the children's essential therapy team.

The final order granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, maintained the father's existing parenting time with minor adjustments, and increased child support retroactively based on the father's updated income.

The court imposed stringent communication controls on the father to prevent further interference with the children's service providers.

The parties separated in 2018 and had been following a week-about parenting schedule for their child, despite the mother relocating to Innisfil and the father remaining in London.

At trial, the mother sought an order for the child to alternate residences annually, while the father sought primary residence.

The court found the mother's proposal would be disruptive and not in the child's best interests.

Considering the mother's history of impaired driving (including an incident with the child in the car) and the father's history of family violence, the court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and primary residence with the father, with strict conditions on the mother's parenting time regarding alcohol and drug use.

The applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligation retroactively to January 1, 2018, and prospectively.

The respondent sought payment of a $35,000 lump sum and significant periodic arrears.

The court found the applicant had engaged in financial nondisclosure regarding a trust fund, which impeded the assessment of his means.

The court terminated spousal support effective April 1, 2022, based on medical evidence of the applicant's inability to work, but ordered him to pay $97,536 in total arrears.

The applicant's motion for contempt against the respondent for late financial disclosure was dismissed, as the court exercised its discretion to decline a contempt finding due to extenuating circumstances.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim parenting order to remove the children from the respondent mother's primary care, alleging parental alienation.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and enrollment in a therapeutic program to repair his relationship with the children.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the children's strong wishes not to have contact with the father.

The court found that the issue of alienation was a triable issue and that a custody reversal was not in the children's best interests at this stage.

The motion was dismissed, the trial was expedited, and an order was made for the children to commence written email communication with the father with the assistance of their counsellor.

Following a trial where the parties settled equalization and the court determined spousal support, both self-represented parties sought costs.

The respondent argued he was the successful party based on an offer to settle, but the court found the applicant was more successful because the respondent's offer contained non-severable terms regarding health benefits and divorce that were less favourable than the trial outcome.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(12)(a) of the Family Law Rules and principles regarding costs for self-represented litigants, the court awarded the applicant $2,500 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

Following an interim parenting motion where the respondent mother was successful in obtaining sole decision-making and primary care, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent sought $12,000, while the applicant argued for $5,000.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including findings of unreasonable behaviour by both parties, the court fixed costs at $8,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant mother, residing in South Carolina, commenced an application for child support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The respondent father, residing in Ontario, raised paternity as an issue and proposed DNA testing.

The court requested further information from the reciprocating jurisdiction in 2019, which was not received.

The court dismissed the application pursuant to s. 11(4) of the Act, noting that the dismissal does not preclude the applicant from commencing a new support application.

The plaintiff brought a motion for disclosure of emails allegedly transferred by a former employee to a competing business.

However, in its factum, the plaintiff abandoned the relief sought in its notice of motion and instead requested a stay of a previous motion and security for costs.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a party cannot seek entirely different relief in its factum than what was claimed in its notice of motion.

Alternatively, the court noted the motion would have been dismissed on the merits as the plaintiff already possessed the requested emails.

The parties brought urgent motions for interim parenting and child support.

The mother sought primary care and sole decision-making, alleging a history of family violence and alcohol abuse by the father, who had recently returned from working in Alberta and quit his job.

The court found the status quo prior to separation was that the mother was the primary caregiver.

The court granted the mother interim primary care and sole decision-making responsibility, ordered a specified parenting schedule for the father with alcohol prohibitions, and imputed income to the father for the purpose of interim child support.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the respondent to compel the applicant to comply with a financial disclosure order.

The respondent sought a significant monetary penalty for the applicant's non-compliance, while the applicant sought costs.

The court declined to impose a monetary penalty, citing unsettled jurisprudence on such penalties without a contempt finding and the lack of specific notice for such relief in the motion.

However, the court found the respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to costs.

Considering the applicant's unreasonable behaviour in failing to comply with disclosure, the court awarded the self-represented respondent $2,500 in costs, enforceable as a support order.

The applicant father sought the return of the child to London, Ontario, arguing the respondent mother had wrongfully relocated to Alberta and changed the child's habitual residence.

The respondent mother challenged jurisdiction, asserting Alberta was the proper forum, or alternatively, sought interim primary care in Alberta.

The court determined that Ontario retained jurisdiction, finding the child's habitual residence was London and the mother's relocation was unilateral and without consent.

Despite this, the court declined to order the child's immediate return to London, instead ordering an expedited trial and permitting the child to start school in Alberta, concluding that the mother had a cogent argument for success on the relocation issue at trial.

This decision addresses a costs motion following the applicant's successful interim restraining order.

The court applied Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to determine costs, rejecting the applicant's argument for near full recovery based on a misinterpretation of Berta v. Berta, as clarified by Beaver v. Hill.

While the respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable and provocative, it did not constitute bad faith.

The court found the applicant's counsel's time and hourly rate reasonable and proportional to the issue, ultimately ordering the respondent to pay $6,500 in costs.

The respondent brought a motion to compel the applicant to comply with a previous financial disclosure order related to child support.

The applicant had provided minimal and disingenuous disclosure, citing a non-existent accountant and a shareholders' agreement as excuses for non-compliance.

The court found the applicant in clear non-compliance, emphasizing the critical importance of full financial disclosure in family law, citing the principle that "non-disclosure is the cancer of family law." The court ordered the applicant to fully comply with the disclosure order within 28 days, providing specific instructions on how to provide the information (e.g., from the corporate controller) and outlining potential sanctions under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules for continued non-compliance, including striking pleadings or contempt.

The court also encouraged the applicant to obtain an expert income report, failing which the respondent could seek an order for one.

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful motion for compliance with undertakings and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought $32,000 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found the applicant largely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

While acknowledging the respondent's substantial voluntary disclosure, the court determined that his position on certain disclosure was incorrect, leading to the motion.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, which allow for flexibility in costs, and considered the absence of offers to settle from either party.

Ultimately, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $22,425, representing approximately 70% of her fees plus allowed disbursements, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount within 30 days, enforceable as a support order.