Victor Mitrow

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following prior motions concerning parenting time, the sale of a jointly-owned residence, and interim spousal and child support.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs, while the self-represented respondent opposed any costs award.

The court assessed the success of each party on the underlying issues, finding divided success on parenting, respondent success on the residence sale, and applicant success on support.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant $5,000 in all-inclusive costs, enforceable as a support order.

The applicant father sought shared decision-making responsibility and equal parenting time for the parties' four children, two of whom have autism.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and defined parenting time, citing the father's history of alcohol abuse, criminal conduct, and family violence.

The court found the father's behaviour constituted family violence and that he lacked insight into his anger and its impact on the family.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility.

The father was granted specified parenting time subject to strict conditions, including prohibitions on alcohol consumption and requirements to child-proof his residence.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer undertakings and refusals from oral questioning in a family law proceeding.

The requested disclosure primarily related to the respondent's severance package from a former employer, significant loans received from a friend, consulting invoices, bank and credit card statements, and documents regarding the purchase of a farm property.

The court granted almost all of the applicant's requests, finding the financial information relevant to the applicant's claims for spousal support and potential imputation of income.

The parties brought competing motions for interim relief regarding parenting time, child and spousal support, and the sale of the jointly-owned family home.

The court ordered that the father's parenting time with the daughter remain subject to her wishes due to trauma from witnessing domestic violence, but granted in-person and virtual parenting time with the son.

The court imputed $30,000 in partnership income to the father due to inadequate financial disclosure, fixing his income at $120,000, and ordered him to pay interim child and spousal support.

The court also directed that the family home be listed for sale by July 2022.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding two Indigenous children with severe asthma, whose health was compromised by the mother's substance abuse and exposure to cigarette smoke.

The Society initially sought a supervision order but later requested to withdraw the application in favour of a customary care agreement placing the children with the maternal grandfather.

The court found the agreement's provision for unsupervised access by the mother did not meet the children's best interests.

The court ordered the children placed with the customary care providers under an interim supervision order, with supervised access for the mother subject to conditions regarding substance use and smoke exposure.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders regarding their two youngest children.

The applicant mother sought primary care of the youngest child with conditions on the respondent father's parenting time, citing concerns about his admitted history of sexual addiction and inappropriate behaviour.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a week-about basis.

The court granted the applicant primary care of the youngest child, finding it consistent with the status quo and the child's best interests.

The court expanded the respondent's parenting time but imposed conditions prohibiting him from keeping pornographic material where the child may be and from discussing his mental health or sexual behaviour with the child.

Parenting time for the older child was ordered to be in accordance with his wishes.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking supervised parenting time for the applicant father and a police assistance order, alleging family violence and harassment.

The court found the father's conduct constituted family violence but determined that supervised parenting time was excessive at this stage.

The court reduced the father's parenting time, ordered strict conditions for access exchanges, granted a police assistance order to prevent overholding, and corrected procedural errors in previously issued ex parte restraining orders.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application regarding a First Nations child who had been placed in the joint care of the parents under a supervision order.

The court found no ongoing protection concerns requiring Society supervision and terminated the supervision order.

In determining the appropriate parenting order under s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court evaluated the competing plans of the parents.

The court awarded primary care and sole decision-making responsibility to the father, noting his ability to provide stability and the mother's history of relationships with violent partners, while granting the mother specified parenting time and decision-making responsibility for education.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the applicant father brought a motion to enforce his parenting time after the 12-year-old children refused to see him.

The respondent mother sought to stay the motion and proceed with oral questioning.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the amended Divorce Act to order reconciliation counselling as an incident of a parenting order.

The court ordered the parties and children to engage in reconciliation counselling to re-establish the relationship between the children and the applicant, dismissing the respondent's request for further litigation at this stage.

Following an undefended trial where the applicant was awarded damages for assault and battery, the applicant sought costs.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 all inclusive, finding the fees and time spent reasonable given the respondent's tortious conduct.

The court also ordered that the applicant be reimbursed from the respondent's share of the net sale proceeds of their jointly-owned property for half of a Legal Aid lien incurred by the respondent for his criminal defence.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought urgent motions regarding parenting time, school enrollment, and interim support following their separation.

The court ordered an interim interim parenting schedule of four days with the father and three days with the mother during the school year, and week-about during the summer.

The child was ordered to attend public school in the father's catchment area for the remainder of the school year.

As a condition of adjourning the motions, the mother was ordered to pay $5,000 in four installments, to be credited towards any future support orders.

The applicant father brought a motion in a high-conflict parenting dispute seeking to terminate the children's current counselling and commence reconciliation counselling to re-establish his parenting time.

The respondent mother agreed to terminate the current counselling but proposed trauma therapy before reconciliation counselling.

The court found no basis to delay reconciliation counselling and ordered the parties to immediately engage in reconciliation counselling with a newly appointed therapist pursuant to section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of her five-year-old child, who was currently in the temporary custody of the applicant paternal grandmother pursuant to an ex parte order.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence on an interim basis, citing the principle of maintaining the status quo pending a full investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

However, the court found it in the child's best interests to increase the mother's parenting time to alternate weekends and a week-about schedule during the summer.

The grandmother was ordered to facilitate most of the transportation due to the mother's circumstances.

The applicant sought to vary an existing child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, specifically to reduce monthly arrears payments and terminate the support obligation for two adult children.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances since the previous final order that fixed arrears.

The application was dismissed as it essentially sought to relitigate issues already decided, and the applicant's income had not decreased.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order against a respondent, Christopher Lee Sommerville, under the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging sexual abuse of children and criminal ties.

The court dismissed the request for a restraining order, finding insufficient evidence to establish reasonable grounds for fear for safety.

However, the court, in the children's best interests, issued a contact order under s. 28(1)(c)(i) of the Act, prohibiting the respondent from direct or indirect contact with the children or the applicant, while an investigation by the Children's Aid Society was ongoing.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' three-year-old child, whom the respondent mother had withheld, alleging the father's substance use posed a risk.

The mother also sought an interlocutory order for primary care.

The court addressed the father's motion and the mother's responding material, including issues of inadmissible hearsay evidence.

An interim, without prejudice, parenting order was issued, granting the mother unsupervised parenting time, including overnights, and the father supervised parenting time in the presence of the paternal grandmother.

The mother's motion for primary care was adjourned to a later date, and the balance of motions were dismissed with costs reserved.

This was an undefended trial where the applicant sought general and special damages for physical injuries and loss of income resulting from a brutal assault by the respondent.

The respondent was served but failed to file an answer or appear.

The court also addressed the sale of a jointly-owned residence.

The judge awarded the applicant $60,000 in general damages and $8,700 in special damages, taking into account significant aggravating factors of the assault.

The order also provided for the payment of damages from the respondent's share of the proceeds from the sale of the jointly-owned property, with the property sale issue remaining before the court for further directions.

This was an undefended trial addressing divorce, equalization payments, and the applicant's claim for occupation rent.

The respondent's pleadings were struck, and she did not appear at trial.

The court granted the divorce, calculated the equalization payment as zero (for res judicata purposes), and quantified the applicant's payments for the respondent's benefit as lump sum spousal support.

The claim for occupation rent was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the applicant to raise it if the respondent ever pursues a spousal support claim in the future.

The applicant mother brought a motion to terminate or supervise the respondent father's access to their child following allegations of sexual abuse.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to enforce the existing final order, make-up access, and a finding of contempt against the mother.

The Children's Aid Society investigated and did not verify the allegations.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to make findings of sexual abuse and ordered that the father's unsupervised access continue, including limited overnight access.

The court also appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child and dismissed the balance of both motions.

The applicant sought ongoing and retroactive child support in an undefended trial following the respondent's failure to file an answer or provide complete financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent to be intentionally underemployed and imputed his income at $59,500 based on his previous earnings.

Applying the DBS factors, the court ordered retroactive child support from July 1, 2017, citing the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to pay support or provide financial disclosure.

The court calculated retroactive arrears at $31,294 and ordered ongoing child support for the eligible children based on the imputed income.