Victor Mitrow

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.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions for interim custody of their child.

The court considered the child's best interests, the status quo of caregiving, and concerns regarding the applicant's marijuana use and the respondent's alcohol use.

The court found that both parents were substantially involved in the child's care prior to separation.

An interim order was made vacating a previous "without prejudice" order, establishing a shared care and control schedule, with specific weekday care for the applicant and the balance for the respondent, and imposing a no-substance-use condition on both parties during their care of the child.

The father moved for temporary care and custody of the children, subject to Society supervision, which was opposed by the Society and the mother.

The mother also moved for expanded interim access, unopposed by the Society.

The court found that despite the father's progress, significant concerns regarding his substance use, lack of corroborating medical reports, and unstable housing remained.

Applying the test from Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., the court determined that the children would likely suffer harm if returned to the father's care and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order at that time.

Consequently, the father's motion for temporary care and custody was dismissed, and the children remained in the Society's temporary care.

However, the court granted expanded interim access to both the father (including overnight access with conditions) and the mother, deeming it in the children's best interests.

The Society was also ordered to expedite a kinship assessment.

The applicant sought $25,000 in costs for temporary proceedings, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court found divided success in the interlocutory motions and unreasonable conduct by both parties, though the respondent received harsher criticism from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Considering these factors and relevant rules, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicants brought a motion under s. 138 of the Child and Family Services Act to dispense with the respondent mother's consent to the adoption of the child, J. The child had been in the applicants' care since 10 months of age following apprehension by the Children's Aid Society due to parental drug addiction and neglect.

The biological father consented to the adoption.

The mother opposed, raising issues of access and alleging bribery, which she later withdrew.

The court granted the motion, finding it in the child's best interests, emphasizing the child's secure placement with the applicants and the speculative nature of a future relationship with the mother.

The court also clarified that access was not a justiciable issue in the adoption motion.

The applicant, a transgender male, sought a divorce from his Texas marriage and an annulment of his subsequent Ontario marriage to the respondent.

The court found the Texas marriage valid under Ontario conflict of laws rules, applying Canadian law due to lack of proof of foreign law.

Consequently, the Ontario marriage was deemed bigamous and annulled.

The court also addressed procedural matters regarding proof of prior divorce and service under the Hague Service Convention.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions for interim custody and access.

The court found urgency due to the respondent's harassing behaviour, including criminal harassment charges and homophobic remarks directed at the applicant and her new partner, which involved the child.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to maintain the status quo, finding compelling reasons to alter it due to his conduct.

The court awarded interim custody to the applicant and established a parenting schedule where the child is with the applicant for three days and the respondent for four days, with all decision-making authority vested in the applicant.

The respondent was encouraged to seek counselling.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim access to the parties' three children.

The respondent mother sought to restrict access to supervised, daytime-only visits, alleging the father had substance abuse issues and had inappropriately touched one of the children.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the touching allegations or to require supervised access, but concluded that prima facie concerns regarding substance abuse justified a temporary prohibition on overnight access and conditions prohibiting alcohol and drug use prior to and during access.

The applicant sought an uncontested divorce.

During a court appearance, it became apparent that the applicant had limited English proficiency.

Her affidavit for divorce had been commissioned by court staff without an interpreter, and the jurat did not certify that the affidavit was interpreted to her, contrary to Rule 4.06(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the affidavit could not be relied upon and ordered the applicant to file a fresh affidavit, properly interpreted by a certified interpreter, along with additional evidence to clarify discrepancies in her application.

The appellant father brought a motion to stay a trial judgment that ordered a week-about parenting plan and child support, pending his appeal.

The trial judge had ordered the shared parenting plan based on the respondent mother obtaining suitable accommodation near the children's school.

Fresh evidence on the motion showed the mother had lost that accommodation, was living in unsuitable temporary housing, and had exhibited erratic behaviour during access visits.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the court found the fresh evidence raised a serious issue for appeal and that a stay was in the children's best interests to prevent irreparable harm.

The motion was granted, staying the week-about plan and child support, and substituting a schedule of specified daytime access for the mother.

This endorsement concerns the confirmation of a provisional variation order for child support made in Alberta, forwarded to Ontario under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The court noted deficiencies in the respondent's filings and the need to determine the child's ongoing dependency.

It declined to confirm the order based on written materials alone and instead issued directions for an oral hearing, requiring both parties to provide comprehensive updated financial and educational documentation.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent, as executrix of their father's estate, to pass accounts.

The respondent had no objection to passing accounts.

The applicant also raised concerns about the respondent's handling of the deceased's finances under a power of attorney.

The court granted the order for the respondent to file estate accounts and an application to pass them.

It clarified that a certificate of appointment was not required for passing accounts.

The court also directed the applicant to file a separate application if he wished to pursue an accounting under the power of attorney, naming both the respondent and another sibling as respondents.

Both parties, being self-represented, were advised to seek legal counsel and adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought to implement Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommendations for equal parenting time, while the respondent moved for interim child support.

The court addressed the applicant's motion, increasing her parenting time and ordering a week-about schedule for summer, while adjourning the respondent's motion.

The decision considered the existing status quo, the respondent's detrimental conduct in denigrating the applicant and her new partner to the children, and the appropriate weight to be given to an OCL report on an interim motion.

Conditions were imposed on both parents regarding substance use during parenting time.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking indefinite spousal support and child support.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the motion to change.

The parties had previously executed comprehensive minutes of settlement and a final release regarding spousal support, which were incorporated into a 2008 court order.

The court applied the LMP and Willick framework, finding no material change in circumstances that was not contemplated by the final agreement.

The court also found no genuine issue for trial regarding child support, as the respondent had met all obligations.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the applicant's motion to change was dismissed.

The father brought a motion to change seeking primary residence of the child, and the mother responded seeking sole custody.

The dispute arose after the father's new partner engaged in a criminal campaign of public mischief, creating fake social media accounts to harass the father and frame the mother, which led the mother to deny access.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify altering the existing joint custody and primary residence arrangement.

The court restored the father's access but imposed conditions restricting the new partner's contact with the child.

Following a trial where the applicant was successful on claims for custody, child support, and arrears, she sought $8,000 in costs.

The court noted divided success on the issue of access, as the respondent was more successful in obtaining unsupervised access in stages rather than the supervised access sought by the applicant.

Both parties exhibited unreasonable conduct, but the respondent's conduct was found to be more unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $7,000 in costs, with $5,500 designated as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion to unseal his daughter's adoption file to forward the contents to Chilean authorities to finalize the adoption in Chile and confirm her dual citizenship.

The court reviewed the statutory framework under the Child and Family Services Act and the leading jurisprudence, which requires 'exceptional circumstances' to unseal adoption records.

The court found insufficient evidence to meet this threshold, noting the lack of affidavit evidence from Chilean officials explaining why the entire file was necessary.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a fresh application with a better evidentiary record.

The appellant brought a motion to stay portions of a final parenting order pending appeal.

Pending full argument on the stay motion, the court addressed the respondent's interim parenting time.

The appellant raised concerns about the respondent's accommodation and a recent medical incident where the respondent appeared disengaged.

The court found insufficient evidence to require supervised parenting time but ordered that the children reside with the appellant, with the respondent having specified daytime parenting time on weekends.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking an order for her son C. to continue spending half his time with her, for C. and his mother to attend counselling, and for a police assistance order.

The applicant (father) had allowed C., then age 10, to decide his own custodial care, leading to C.'s estrangement from his mother.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable, noting he abdicated parental responsibility and breached a separation agreement.

While acknowledging C.'s wishes, the court determined they were influenced and not in his best interests.

The court ordered defined interim access for C. with the mother and granted the mother sole authority to arrange counselling for C. and herself to rebuild their relationship, with costs shared.

The request for a police assistance order was adjourned.