Elisabeth Amy Sheppard

The applicant mother and respondent father brought an interim motion concerning parenting, decision-making responsibility, and retroactive child support.

The court addressed allegations of family violence and the admissibility of surreptitious recordings, ultimately finding the recordings highly suspicious and giving them no weight.

The court ordered a phased increase in the father's parenting time, moving towards greater involvement, and established a joint decision-making framework with the mother having final say on most issues, but requiring joint consent for residence changes, school choice, and therapeutic services.

Retroactive child support arrears were calculated with a deduction for the father's contributions to housing.

The court determined costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, child support, and financial disclosure.

Success was divided, with the moving party securing unsupervised parenting time and the responding party succeeding on issues of baby-proofing, COVID-19 protocols, child support, and financial disclosure.

Given the divided success and the moving party's failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure, the court declined to order costs to either party.

This was a family law costs endorsement following a summary judgment motion in which the applicant obtained most of the substantive relief sought, including orders relating to decision-making, parenting, child support, and related relief.

The court held that the applicant was the successful party under r. 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and that her offer to settle was more favourable to the respondent than the resulting order on most issues.

Although the respondent's conduct was found to be unreasonable throughout the litigation, the court was not satisfied that the evidentiary threshold for bad faith under r. 24(8) was met.

Applying reasonableness and proportionality under r. 24(12), the court fixed costs at $13,300 inclusive of disbursements and HST, including outstanding prior costs.

The Father brought a motion seeking increased parenting time and disclosure of the child's information.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for child support, retroactive child support, income disclosure, and baby-proofing of the Father's home.

The court ordered three supervised visits for the Father, transitioning to unsupervised alternating weekend parenting time.

The Mother's request for a different supervisor was denied.

Temporary child support of $573 per month was ordered, with retroactive support deferred to a full evidentiary hearing.

Various orders regarding communication, safety measures, and disclosure were also made.

The Applicant father brought an urgent motion for a temporary shared parenting schedule for the child, Olive Grace Murray.

The Respondent mother opposed, seeking limited supervised access and communication through an app, and also requested child support (which the court declined to consider).

The court reviewed the parties' history, including a prior shared parenting arrangement that the mother unilaterally stopped, and the mother's concerns about the father's conduct and mental health.

Applying the "best interests of the child" principle and the desirability of maximizing contact, the court found no compelling reasons to alter the status quo of shared parenting.

The motion was granted, restoring the shared parenting schedule with third-party exchanges and communication via a designated app.

The father brought a motion for an interim parenting schedule within the mother's motion to change proceeding.

The father sought a 2-2-3 equal timesharing arrangement, which the parties had previously agreed to in negotiations before the mother changed her mind.

The father also sought an order requiring the mother to disclose international travel and comply with COVID-19 quarantine directives, after discovering she had travelled internationally multiple times without notice and failed to quarantine upon return.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering interim joint custody, a 2-2-3 timesharing schedule, and compliance with travel and quarantine directives, finding it in the child's best interests.

The mother's request for an order requiring the father to sign the child's passport was dismissed.

The Respondent brought an urgent motion to vary a prior order and obtain shared custody of the four children.

The Applicant opposed, seeking continuation of the prior order and supervised access for the Respondent, citing concerns about the Respondent's disposition, anger management, and past aggressive behaviour towards her, a step-child, and a family pet.

The court found an "air of reality" to the Applicant's allegations, including verified physical discipline and emotional harm by Family and Children's Services (FCS) Renfrew County, and outstanding criminal charges against the Respondent.

Given the conflicting evidence and early stage of proceedings, the court dismissed the Respondent's motion for shared custody and ordered temporary supervised access for the Respondent, to be facilitated by an agreed-upon family member or acquaintance, and later at a supervised access centre.

The court also ordered FCS Renfrew County to provide a report and prohibited negative discussions about the other parent or the proceedings with the children.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an interim order that expanded the applicant father's access to his daughter.

The father sought costs on a full indemnity basis, arguing the mother was unreasonable regarding access and caused delays.

The mother argued for divided success, noting the final order was more aligned with her offer regarding the timing of overnight visits.

The court found divided success but determined the father was more successful overall in obtaining meaningful access.

Applying principles of costs, including partial indemnification, encouraging settlement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $1000 in costs within nine months, considering the importance of the case, the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, and the proportionality of the award.

This decision addresses costs following competing motions for temporary relief regarding access and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court granted supervised access to the child at the father's expense, while also granting the father's request for OCL appointment.

The court found the mother largely successful on the access motion but noted unreasonable delay in advancing her position.

Considering the divided success and the mother's conduct, the court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $1,400.00, inclusive of HST, payable by the father.

The mother brought a motion to suspend the father's access to their child after the father was charged with assaulting the mother in the child's presence.

The father brought a cross-motion to reinstate his access, proposing to parent the child at a friend's home.

The court reviewed the history of high conflict litigation and the father's failure to exercise his previously ordered access.

Finding that the child required protection from the conflict, the court suspended the father's previous access rights and ordered supervised access at a professional centre.