Victor Mitrow

This status review application concerned the return of a child to parents with significant developmental delays under a six-month final supervision order.

The court initially declined to make the order due to concerns about parental capacity and suggested a s. 54 assessment.

After further evidence, including developmental reports and the parents' decision for Crown wardship of a subsequent child, the court granted the supervision order.

A fundamental condition was that the parents and child must reside with the paternal grandparents, whose home was noted as overcrowded and had past protection concerns.

The court emphasized the necessity of a s. 54 assessment for any future plan involving the parents living independently.

The moving parties, the aunt and uncle of a child apprehended at birth, sought to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding where the Society sought Crown wardship.

The Society opposed the motion, arguing that the mother could advance the kinship plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that adding the aunt and uncle was in the child's best interests, would not delay the proceedings, and was necessary to allow them to independently advance their kinship plan.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, supervised access, and child support.

The respondent father conceded custody but sought unsupervised access.

The court found both parents shared blame for a two-year lapse in access following an incident where the father refused to return the child.

The court ordered sole custody to the mother and a progressive access schedule for the father, initially supervised by the paternal grandparents.

The court also imputed the father's income at $65,000 and ordered him to pay ongoing child support of $594 per month, plus $24,988 in arrears for table support and section 7 childcare expenses.

In a status review application proceeding on consent, the Children's Aid Society sought to terminate a supervision order and grant joint custody of a nine-year-old child to the maternal grandparents residing in New Brunswick.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make the custody order given the child's residence outside Ontario.

The court found statutory authority under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act and concluded the child remained habitually resident in Ontario.

The court granted joint custody to the grandparents with reasonable access to the mother.

Following motions for interim custody, access, and support, the respondent sought costs of $13,000 against actual legal fees of nearly $25,000.

The applicant argued the costs were outrageous and sought no costs due to divided success and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court found the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the more successful party, but significantly reduced the award due to her unreasonable conduct, including self-help and filing excessively voluminous and irrelevant affidavit material.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs, payable at the final resolution of the proceeding.

A status review application concerning two children, S. and N., resulted in a final order awarding sole custody to their paternal great-aunt, C.M.P., pursuant to s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children's mother and father did not participate in the proceedings.

While other access issues were resolved, the father's access was adjourned for further evidence due to historical allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour and concerns regarding one child's "sexualized behaviour."

The applicant mother sought supervised access for the respondent father at Merrymount and a restraining order.

The respondent father sought interim unsupervised access.

The court granted the mother's request for supervised access at Merrymount, finding it in the child's best interests, but allowed the father liberty to bring a future motion to vary the order to allow for supervision by his mother or other family members, or for unsupervised access after nine visits.

The court also noted a violation of Rule 14(20), para. 3 by the applicant's second affidavit but considered the relevant evidence.

The applicants (father and paternal grandparents) brought a motion for interim custody and access for two children.

The respondent (mother) opposed.

The court addressed conflicting evidence regarding parental fitness, the mother's mental health, and the role of the grandparents as de facto caregivers.

Emphasizing the children's best interests, the court awarded interim joint custody to the mother and grandparents, establishing a detailed rotating parenting schedule with conditions on the mother's residence and supervision.

The father was granted reasonable access during the grandparents' parenting time.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, which sought to set aside a land transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The plaintiffs alleged the transfer was made to evade an unpaid judgment debt against Said Meddaoui.

The defendants argued Said Meddaoui's liability on the judgment was extinguished by his discharge from bankruptcy in 2000, and he acquired the land after his discharge.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that Said Meddaoui's discharge released him from the debt, and the plaintiffs' claims of an agreement to pay or non-disclosure of assets were not properly pleaded or supported by evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the third party (the Crown) to provide discovery information and re-attend examination, arguing the Crown's participation was compellable.

The Crown argued its participation was voluntary under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA), not the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA), which grants discovery rights.

The court found the third-party action was commenced under PTHIA, thus no right of discovery against the Crown, and dismissed most of the motion.

However, the court enforced a "best efforts" undertaking given by Crown counsel, emphasizing the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its process.

This was an uncontested family law trial where the applicant sought divorce, spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, freezing assets, costs, pre-judgment interest, and apportionment of a line of credit for university expenses.

The respondent failed to respond or appear.

The court granted a divorce decree but adjourned all other claims due to insufficient evidence regarding pension division and university expenses.

The court required further evidence, including a pension valuation by the administrator and detailed documentation for s. 7 expenses, and ordered the respondent to file a financial statement.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for a child with complex medical needs, following concerns of "medical child abuse" by the maternal grandmother.

Despite an initial ADR process, a final resolution was not reached.

The court considered a consent order, signed by all parties except the maternal grandmother, to place the child with the father and paternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence detailing the child's significant improvement after being removed from the maternal grandmother's primary care.

The court granted the temporary supervision order, placing the child with the father and paternal grandmother, with conditions, and ordered supervised access for the maternal grandmother due to the credible medical concerns.

This corrigendum corrects a clerical error in the reasons for judgment released on June 30, 2016.

Specifically, the date for fixing spousal support arrears in paragraph 2 of the final order is corrected from "November 5, 2011" to "November 5, 2015", thereby fixing the spousal support arrears at $24,187 as of the corrected date.

The parties brought motions for various interim relief concerning custody, child support, and spousal support.

The court awarded interim sole custody of the two children to the respondent, permitting her to relocate with the children to Strathroy.

The applicant was granted generous interim access.

The court found the respondent to be the primary caregiver prior to separation and considered the applicant's alcohol consumption as a negative factor impacting parenting ability.

The previous "nesting order" was deemed not in the children's best interests due to the high-conflict relationship between the parents.

The applicant was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,176 per month and interim spousal support of $350 per month, while remaining solely responsible for the family home expenses.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders to prohibit the respondent's mother and friend from participating in access exchanges and from discussing adult issues with the children.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to vary interim access, shift driving responsibility, and obtain disclosure of information regarding the children, including designation as an alternative emergency contact, and for interim child support.

The court dismissed the applicant's prohibitive requests, granted the respondent's disclosure requests by consent, and varied the interim access schedule to increase the respondent's weekend time and introduce shared driving responsibilities, citing a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's relocation.

A mutual order was also issued prohibiting derogatory comments and discussing court proceedings with the children.

The Ontario Superior Court was asked to confirm a provisional order from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench that significantly reduced child and spousal support arrears owed by the respondent.

The court found itself unable to proceed with the confirmation hearing due to the absence of a crucial transcript from the Alberta proceedings where the decision to reduce arrears was originally rendered.

The court ordered the production of this missing transcript on an expedited basis and extended a temporary stay of enforcement of the original divorce judgment until the confirmation hearing could be finalized.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an appeal, which was dismissed, concerning a mobility issue where the respondent was permitted to relocate with the child.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $40,000, while the appellant argued for no costs or $7,500.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, particularly r. 24(1) and 24(11), finding that the appellant's pursuit of the appeal was not unreasonable.

The court noted the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle, which precluded full indemnity costs under r. 18(14), and found the time spent by the respondent's counsel to be excessive, disallowing costs for junior counsel's attendance.

The court fixed costs at $17,500 inclusive, to be set off against any remaining equalization payment.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship, silent as to access, for a child with special needs.

The respondent parents opposed, seeking a supervision order.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's significant cognitive impairment and poor judgment, and the father's debilitating psychogenic seizures and lack of insight.

The parents were deemed unable to meet the child's long-term needs, particularly her special developmental requirements.

Crown wardship was granted, with the child to be adopted by kinship foster parents, and access was denied due to the statutory presumption against access to a Crown ward not being overcome.

The Children's Aid Society sought a six-month supervision order to place the child C. with the parent Ms. P., partner of the child's father Mr. P. The court, despite significant historical concerns regarding Mr. P.'s domestic violence, criminal record, mental health, and past failures to complete programs, reluctantly approved the order.

The decision was based on the Society's strong recommendation, positive reports of parental cooperation, and the need to avoid moving C. to a new foster home.

The court imposed additional conditions requiring Mr. P. to undergo psychiatric assessment, complete programs, and ensuring Ms. P. supervises all his interactions with both C. and his half-sibling K. Furthermore, Mr. P. was explicitly prohibited from supervising Ms. W.'s (C.'s mother) access.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and the balance of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father had ceased participating in the litigation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding the previous shared-parenting arrangement had negatively affected the child's anxiety.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and directed that the remaining matrimonial home proceeds be paid to the applicant to satisfy outstanding costs and adjustments.