Viktoriya Terentyeva

The appellant husband sought to appeal a final order from a family law trial made under the Divorce Act to the Divisional Court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act did not extend to this final order, as the payments ordered exceeded $50,000 and the order was not made by a Family Court judge or under an Ontario statute.

The appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the clear lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent sought a final restraining order against the applicant and an order dispensing with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, citing a pattern of family violence.

The applicant denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the restraining order, proposing alternative contact restrictions or a delayed re-application.

The court found the applicant had perpetrated family violence, characterized by a cycle of abuse, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The court granted the final restraining order against the applicant, including restrictions on contact and proximity, and dispensed with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, effective immediately and subject to review after 36 months without incident.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making, specific parenting time, travel/document orders, and special/extraordinary expenses for the three children of the marriage.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making and broader travel rights.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding poor communication and a lack of mutual trust and respect between the parents.

The father's parenting time was limited to day visits, with overnights at the mother's discretion, due to lack of evidence for overnight accommodation.

The mother was granted authority to obtain children's documents and travel internationally without the father's consent, while the father requires the mother's written consent for international travel, citing a credible risk of non-return to Canada.

The father was ordered to pay s.7 arrears and 82% of ongoing special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent sought an urgent order for the child to relocate to Vancouver, asserting the applicant's consent to relocation and her primary caregiving role.

The applicant cross-moved for the child to reside primarily in Ontario.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction as the child was habitually resident there.

The court determined that the applicant had consented to the child's relocation to Vancouver, evidenced by a signed travel consent and purchased airline tickets.

Applying the onus on the applicant to establish that the relocation was not in the child's best interests, the court found it was in the child's best interest to relocate with the respondent to Vancouver on an interim basis, given the respondent was the primary caregiver and had made extensive arrangements in Vancouver.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial on parenting and support.

The mother (applicant) was largely successful on parenting and more successful on financial issues, including imputed income and spousal support.

The father (respondent) engaged in serious unreasonable behaviour by breaching court orders regarding the child's return to Canada.

However, the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by altering a text message.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, but ordered her to pay the father $5,000 due to her bad faith, resulting in a net costs award of $15,000 to the mother, payable in installments.

The appellant, Armen Petrosian, appealed orders permitting the respondent, Hasmik Tovmasyan, to relocate to California with their two children, and awarding child and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Children's Law Reform Act regarding relocation, including the onus under s. 39.4(6), and no error in the imputation of income for support calculations.

The parties participated in a binding judicial dispute resolution (JDR) process to resolve outstanding parenting issues regarding their eight-year-old child.

The JDR process, a pilot program in the Kitchener Unified Family Court, allowed the parties to settle most issues on consent.

The court adjudicated the remaining narrow issues, including the financial implications of major decision-making, exchange locations, and attendance at extra-curricular activities, focusing on minimizing the child's exposure to conflict.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal parenting time with the parties' six-year-old daughter and an order prohibiting the respondent mother from leaving the child unattended with a specific friend.

The court found that the previous interim consent order did not establish a status quo requiring a material change in circumstances to vary.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court ordered a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule, finding both parents capable and loving.

The request to restrict the mother's friend was dismissed as the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The respondent mother sought urgent temporary sole custody, primary residence, and an order to travel with the parties' child (Y, under three) to Vancouver, B.C., for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a suspension of the applicant father's in-person parenting time and a restraining order.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion for an equal parenting schedule and a prohibition on removing the child from Ontario.

The court, finding the matter urgent, dismissed the mother's request to travel, citing public health risks, the federal advisory against non-essential travel, and the child's need for stability and continued contact with both parents.

The court set aside a prior joint custody order due to concerns about the father's conduct towards the mother but declined to grant sole custody, requiring further testing of allegations.

A temporary parenting schedule was established, granting the father parenting time from Thursday evening to Sunday evening weekly, with exchanges facilitated by his sister.

Requests for a s. 30 assessment, Office of the Children's Lawyer referral, and a new restraining order were dismissed without prejudice, noting the impracticality of assessments during the pandemic and the existence of a criminal restraining order.