Jacob Stall

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law re-trial regarding the relocation of a five-year-old child from Toronto to Ireland, decision-making responsibility, and parenting time.

The court found a long-standing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Respondent, Aamir Saleem Shipton, toward the Applicant, Kathleen Marie Shipton, including family violence, financial control, and isolation.

The court permitted the relocation to Ireland, granted the Applicant sole decision-making authority, and set out a detailed parenting schedule to ensure the child maintains a relationship with both parents and her multicultural heritage.

The decision applies a blended best interests analysis, referencing recent appellate and Supreme Court guidance on relocation, family violence, and the importance of stability and parental well-being.

The father sought an order finding the mother in breach of a consent order regarding their child's Shia Ismaili religious upbringing, specifically weekly religious education classes.

The mother argued the order did not contemplate weekly interference with her parenting time and that the father had not made reasonable efforts to schedule classes during his time.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother was not in breach, as the order did not require her to give up every Saturday morning of her parenting time for religious education.

The court provided guidance on interpreting the order, emphasizing mutual support for the child's religious upbringing and the father's primary responsibility to schedule events during his parenting time.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that the applicant was in contempt of court for breaching a prior order.

The order required the applicant to regularly update the respondent on their child's activities and to remove all references to the respondent from her social media accounts and abstain from further references.

The court dismissed the allegation regarding updates on the child's counselling and psychiatrist, finding insufficient evidence of deliberate breach.

However, the court found the applicant in contempt for failing to remove and continuing to post videos that indirectly referenced the respondent on social media, interpreting "reference" broadly to include content identifiable by those acquainted with the parties.

The applicant's credibility was found to be very poor.

A hearing for sanction and costs was scheduled.

Following a trial where the applicant's family law claims were dismissed, the respondent sought her costs on a substantial and full indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent was the successful party and had made a settlement offer that she beat at trial, entitling her to costs under Rule 18(14).

However, due to credibility concerns regarding both parties, the court declined to award full indemnity costs.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of her offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The applicant and respondent, former unmarried cohabitants, purchased a home together in 2001.

In 2002, the applicant transferred his 50% interest to the respondent.

After their relationship ended in 2013, the applicant sought a 50% interest in the property via resulting or constructive trust, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment based on his contributions to home renovations and the respondent's cleaning business.

The court dismissed all claims, finding the 2002 transfer was for valuable consideration, defeating the resulting trust claim.

The unjust enrichment claim failed because the applicant's room and board provided a juristic reason for his contributions, and he failed to prove the value of his labour or materials.

Claims for a joint family venture and conversion of personal property were also dismissed.

Following an urgent motion where the applicant was granted primary residency of the child, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $30,000, while the respondent argued she should recover 50% of her own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct in abruptly enforcing a stale order and making unsupported allegations.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court ordered the respondent to pay $25,000 in costs to the applicant, deductible from ongoing support payments if unpaid.

This is a costs decision arising from motions in a family law matter.

The court granted the mother temporary custody of two children, permitted travel without the father's consent, and ordered the father to pay temporary child support retroactive to July 1, 2015, including arrears of $11,577.

The father's motion for joint custody, shared parenting time, and child and spousal support was dismissed.

The mother sought costs of $9,094.74 while the father sought approximately $1,800.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the successful party, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary custody of two children, child support retroactive to October 1, 2014, contribution to special expenses, and the right to travel with the children outside Canada without the father's written consent.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody, equal time-sharing, and child and spousal support.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother, established a structured parenting schedule based on the father's work availability, ordered child support retroactive to July 1, 2015, ordered payment of special expenses for child care, and dismissed the father's claims for spousal support.

The court found the father's failure to pay any child support since separation to be egregiously blameworthy conduct.