Victor Mitrow

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.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order to commit a youth to a secure treatment program for 180 days due to severe substance abuse and mental health issues.

The youth's parents supported the application, while the youth opposed it.

The court found that the youth suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired their capacity to make reasoned judgments, and that the youth had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to themselves through severe drug use and resulting emaciation.

The court granted the application, finding that secure treatment was the only effective and least restrictive method available to prevent further serious bodily harm.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for a stay pending appeal of an access order, the respondent sought costs.

The court reviewed the offers to settle made by the appellant and found they did not comply with the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, as they were conditional or included predeterminations of costs.

However, considering the parties' reasonable behaviour and the factors under Rule 24(12), the court awarded the successful respondent costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants (paternal grandmother and father) brought an urgent motion for an interim parenting order for their two-year-old child.

The urgency arose because the mother had unilaterally taken the child to Prince Edward Island, which the court previously ordered her to return from.

The court considered the father's extensive criminal record, including assault convictions, and the mother's wrongful self-help actions, as well as questions regarding the mother's parenting abilities.

The court made an interim parenting order granting the paternal grandmother care and control for part of the week and the mother for the remainder, with the father having supervised daytime access.

The motions were adjourned to a case conference to address the mother's future housing arrangements.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to reinstate alternate weekend access with her child, which the applicant father had unilaterally suspended due to alleged COVID-19 concerns and the child's purported fears.

The court found the father's reasons for suspending access suspect, emphasizing that court orders must be obeyed and that a parent cannot delegate access decisions to a child.

The motion was granted, reinstating access and ordering make-up weekends.

The respondent's Form 14B motion was deemed a motion to change, and the applicant's answer was struck, though he retained the right to seek child support.

The paternal grandmother and father brought an urgent motion for the return of a two-year-old child after the mother unilaterally relocated with the child from London, Ontario to Prince Edward Island.

The mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody and permission to reside in PEI.

The court applied the Plumley test for interim mobility and found no compelling circumstances to justify the move, noting the child's habitual residence was London and the move would undermine the child's relationship with the applicants.

The mother was ordered to return the child to London pending further interim orders.

The applicant sought urgent interim parenting time with his two-year-old child, alleging denial of access by the respondent mother.

The court, acknowledging the urgency due to COVID-19, granted the applicant progressive parenting time, including overnights after an initial period of day visits.

However, the applicant's broader claims for interim custody and equal parenting time were dismissed, with the court noting the child's de facto primary care remained with the respondent.

Access exchanges were ordered to be facilitated by the paternal grandmother.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of a 14-year-old child after the respondents (mother and maternal grandparents) failed to return the child following an access visit, in contravention of a final custody order.

The court found the respondents' conduct patently unreasonable and in breach of the order, as they empowered the child to unilaterally extend the visit and failed to communicate through the required channels.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child and ordered a case conference, emphasizing that court orders must be obeyed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the reinstatement of his access to the parties' five-year-old child, as stipulated in a final order, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent argued that the final order was no longer effective due to a de facto parenting arrangement and proposed limited, supervised access.

The court affirmed that existing court orders must be obeyed and that the COVID-19 pandemic does not automatically suspend in-person parenting time or permit unilateral changes to court-ordered access.

The court declared the final order to be in full force and effect, dismissed the respondent's proposed limited access, and denied the applicant's request for an interim police assistance order, while directing the applicant to issue a formal application.

The applicant mother sought interim unsupervised access to her two children, while the respondent father sought supervised access.

The court found urgency due to COVID-19 and heard the motions via teleconference.

Despite allegations of mental health issues and past conflict, the court was not persuaded that supervised access was necessary, considering the children's ages, the mother's prior involvement, and two positive supervised visits.

Unsupervised, staged access was granted to the mother, with a requirement to provide evidence of steps taken to address mental health issues.

The applicant sought an urgent restraining order and interim sole custody of the child, along with a contribution to child-related costs.

The court found urgency only for the restraining order claim.

While the formal restraining order was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the respondent's agreement to a no-contact provision, a no-contact order was issued under the Children's Law Reform Act as part of a parenting plan.

The request for interim sole custody was denied, with the court maintaining the existing 50/50 parenting time schedule and making specific arrangements for exchanges.

The claim for child-related costs was dismissed as non-urgent and unsupported by a child support claim.

The appellant mother brought a motion for a stay pending appeal of an interlocutory order that permitted the respondent father to continue in-person access to their immunocompromised child during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother also sought the appointment of counsel for the child.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

While finding the appeal raised a serious issue, the court concluded the child would not suffer irreparable harm due to the strict safety conditions imposed by the motion judge, and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The mother's motion for a stay and appointment of counsel was dismissed, as was the father's motion to admit fresh evidence.

The applicant brought a motion for access to his child.

The respondent failed to participate in two teleconference hearings and did not file any material.

The court found the respondent obstructed access and ordered interim in-person and video access for the applicant, emphasizing the child's best interests and warning the respondent about the consequences of non-compliance with court orders, including potential contempt proceedings.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the applicant sought an interim order for six trips with the child, but was only permitted one.

The court found the respondent to be more successful on the underlying motion.

The applicant sought $1,000 in costs, while the self-represented respondent claimed $4,500.

Although the respondent was deemed more successful and a reasonable costs award would be $1,000-$1,250, her entitlement was reduced to $250 due to her unreasonable conduct, specifically non-compliance with court orders regarding the length, form, and content of her filed materials.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $250 in costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of a child and a police assistance order during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents (mother and maternal grandparents) had the child, who was in a second 14-day self-isolation period due to potential COVID-19 exposure.

The court found no urgency for immediate return, deeming the father's demand unreasonable given the mother's explanation.

While denying the immediate return and police order, the court issued an interim order for the child's return on the date proposed by the mother, adjourning the motion to ensure compliance.

The case highlights the need for reasonableness and adaptation in family matters during extraordinary times.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion for a police assistance order to enforce a temporary parenting order after the respondent mother withheld the child due to concerns about the father's adherence to COVID-19 social distancing recommendations.

The court found the mother's self-help approach to be in contravention of an existing court order.

Adopting the principle that the COVID-19 pandemic does not automatically suspend in-person parenting time, the court ordered the child's return to the father's primary care, emphasizing that parents must act reasonably to protect children's best interests.

A police assistance order was included, with costs reserved.

The applicant sought costs of $28,500.86 following a successful motion to determine the venue of the family law proceeding.

The respondent argued for costs of $6,500, payable at the conclusion of the case.

The court found the applicant's claimed costs excessive and noted her unreasonable conduct in unilaterally moving the children without notice.

The court fixed costs at $6,500, payable 30 days after the final disposition of the application.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the respondent's motion for interim relief, which sought to revoke the applicant's parental rights and award sole custody.

The applicant, having successfully defended the motion, sought $10,000 in costs.

The court found the respondent's claims irresponsible and her ex parte proceeding a failure of full disclosure.

However, the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in attempting to cross the US border with the child without proper documentation led to a reduction in the costs awarded.

The court fixed costs at $3,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent, and declined to characterize them as child support.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission for six international and domestic trips with the child during the school year.

The respondent mother opposed, emphasizing the high-conflict history, the importance of maintaining the established parallel parenting schedule to minimize parental conflict, and concerns about the child missing school.

The court dismissed five of the six proposed trips, finding them too disruptive and contrary to the child's best interests, particularly regarding school attendance and schedule stability.

However, one trip to Disney World was permitted, with specific arrangements for pick-up, return, and make-up parenting time, as it was deemed child-focused and minimally disruptive.

The court also addressed the respondent's non-compliance with procedural orders regarding affidavit formatting, declining to strike her affidavit but noting potential cost implications.