Victor Mitrow

The applicant father and respondent mother brought cross-motions for interim custody and access of their two-year-old child.

The mother sought interim sole custody due to the child's concerning behaviors following access visits and a suspected milk allergy, which the father dismissed.

The father sought interim joint custody and equal parenting time, relying on the maximum contact principle.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding the father's dismissive attitude toward the child's symptoms and need for control were not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated increase in the father's access time but rejected his request for equal parenting time, emphasizing that the maximum contact principle must be subject to the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The appellant mother brought a motion to stay a final custody order pending appeal.

The trial judge had changed the child's primary residence to the respondent father due to the child's poor school attendance while in the mother's care.

The Divisional Court reviewed the test for a stay pending appeal, noting conflicting jurisprudence on the 'serious issue' threshold, but ultimately dismissed the motion.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious issue, the mother failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, emphasizing that the child's best interests were served by continuing to attend school from the father's residence.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application seeking Crown wardship of a five-year-old child with severe behavioural and special needs.

The mother did not participate in the trial.

The father, who had an extensive criminal record and had been absent for most of the child's life, sought placement of the child in his care under a supervision order.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's inability to manage the child's extreme aggressive behaviours.

The court rejected the father's plan, finding he lacked insight into the child's complex needs and had failed to complete recommended programs in a timely manner.

The child was made a Crown ward with supervised access granted to the father.

The Children's Aid Society sought a protection finding and an order of Crown wardship for a child apprehended at birth due to the mother's substance abuse and mental health issues.

The mother passed away shortly after the child's birth.

The father, who had separated from the mother, sought to parent the child.

The Society argued the father lacked parenting capacity based on observations during supervised access and a parenting program.

The court found the child in need of protection but dismissed the request for Crown wardship, finding the Society's concerns about the father's parenting abilities were overstated and did not justify the most intrusive order.

The court ordered the child placed in the father's care for 10 months subject to a supervision order with terms and conditions, emphasizing the principle of the least disruptive course of action.

The moving party father brought a motion for an interim order to vary a final order, seeking expanded and unsupervised access to his five-year-old child.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing concerns about the father's past behaviour and fears of abduction to the United States or Nigeria.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the child's age and the successful completion of supervised visits.

The court granted graduated unsupervised access to take place in London, Ontario, but declined to allow the child to travel to the United States at this time.

The applicant was successful on a motion to sell the matrimonial home and sought costs of $14,976.46.

The respondent opposed the motion and argued each party should bear their own costs, relying on an offer she made.

The court found the respondent's offer did not beat the order as it included a right of first refusal condition.

However, the court reduced the applicant's costs because he failed to make any offer to settle, which was deemed unreasonable behaviour under the Family Law Rules.

Costs were fixed at $7,000 payable by the respondent, to be set off against any equalization payment.

The parties resolved their appeal by entering into minutes of settlement to proceed by way of a motion to change.

The court determined the costs of the appellant's motion for a stay pending appeal and the appeal itself.

Finding divided success on the motion to stay and noting the appellant's unreasonable conduct in denying court-ordered access, the court awarded the appellant modest costs of $5,000, payable by the respondent in monthly installments.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for directions after discovering it had failed to serve the First Nation before obtaining a Crown wardship order for an Indigenous child.

The court found the original order was a nullity as against the First Nation due to the lack of notice.

Applying Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court varied the Crown wardship order in accordance with minutes of settlement to add the First Nation as a party, formally recognize the child's Indigenous status, and mandate specific cultural access and community connection provisions.

The applicant mother brought an undefended motion for summary judgment seeking a divorce, sole custody, restricted access, and child support.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the respondent father's failure to participate, comply with disclosure orders, or address evidence of alcohol abuse and child protection concerns.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, ordered supervised access conditional on the respondent completing a hair follicle test and a parenting program, and imputed an annual income of $60,000 to the respondent for child support purposes due to his failure to disclose and intentional underemployment.

This matter involved a hearing to confirm a provisional variation order from the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta concerning child support and extraordinary expenses.

The applicant sought to increase child support retroactive to January 1, 2013, based on an alleged increase in the respondent's income, and contributions for extraordinary school expenses.

The Ontario Superior Court found no material change in the respondent's income since a previous confirmed order, maintaining the imputed income at $22,395 annually.

Consequently, the provisional order for increased child support was not confirmed.

However, a lump sum special education expense was confirmed, but the respondent's share was reduced from $570 to $385 based on the confirmed income.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on an 'over 80' charge.

The trial judge had excluded breath certificate evidence after finding Charter breaches under ss. 8 and 9, based on a misapprehension of evidence regarding the officer's grounds for a breath demand and an incorrect test for the reliability of the Approved Screening Device (ASD).

The appeal court found the trial judge misapprehended evidence by concluding the ASD 'fail' was the *only* ground for the Intoxilyzer demand, and erred in requiring proof of ASD calibration.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiff was successful on a motion for summary judgment for the sale of a mortgaged property and sought substantial indemnity costs of $16,285.09 based on the mortgage covenant.

The self-represented defendant did not file costs submissions.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1), noting the defendant unduly prolonged the matter and advanced meritless arguments.

The court fixed costs payable to the plaintiff at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought summary judgment for the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed, seeking interim exclusive possession and raising issues regarding her alleged Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), the applicant's alleged cognitive decline affecting finances, and undisclosed assets.

The court granted the applicant's motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The respondent's claims regarding MCS lacked medical corroboration, and her financial allegations against the applicant were unsubstantiated.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for interim exclusive possession and the applicant's request for possession of household contents, ordering that $60,000 from each party's share of the sale proceeds be held in trust pending further order.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa that required him to pay parking charges in addition to his rent-geared-to-income.

The applicant argued that parking charges must be included in the geared-to-income rent calculation under the Housing Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the Housing Services Act does not authorize adding parking charges to geared-to-income rent, it does not preclude a separate contractual agreement for parking under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court held that any dispute regarding the validity of the parking charges or the tenancy agreement must be determined by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his former employer violated s. 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by dismissing him in reprisal for raising harassment allegations.

The Board found the applicant was dismissed for insubordination and failure to follow employer rules, not for asserting rights under the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, based on clear and logical reasons, and supported by the evidence.

The applicant company sought judicial review of an interlocutory procedural order made by an arbitrator in an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The order required the company to produce documents found to be arguably relevant and declined to bifurcate the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, reiterating its disinclination to intervene in ongoing labour relations processes absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a written caution issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The caution was issued because the applicant's clinic used patient and staff testimonials in its advertising, contrary to the regulations under the Medicine Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the investigation was adequate and the interpretation of the regulation prohibiting testimonials was reasonable.

The appellants, a landlord and his corporation, appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board requiring the corporation to pay the tenant $5,829.91.

The individual appellant argued the corporation was not properly served with the notice of hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on a threshold issue, noting that under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a corporation must be represented by a lawyer unless leave is granted.

As the individual appellant was self-represented, had not sought leave, and had no standing to speak for the corporation, the appeal was not properly before the court and was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following successful motions, including an award of interim custody, where the respondent's conduct was described as "egregious." The respondent failed to file costs submissions.

The court found the applicant's requested costs of $2,080 to be modest and reasonable, considering the applicant's success and the respondent's behaviour.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the fixed costs.

The parties filed written submissions for costs following a motion regarding child access where success was divided.

The applicant sought $5,579 and the respondent sought $7,500.

The court noted that 21 affidavits were filed on the motion, yet neither party made an offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court found that the failure to make an offer to settle constituted unreasonable behaviour.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party, ordering each to bear their own costs.