Mark A. Simpson

The mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and contributions to section 7 expenses.

The father opposed and sought to terminate support for the eldest child.

The court determined the parties' incomes, finding the father failed to prove entitlement to deduct employment expenses.

Retroactive child support was ordered.

The court reviewed years of claimed section 7 expenses, allowing legitimate educational, health, and extracurricular costs while denying personal vehicle expenses.

Ongoing child support was adjusted to reflect the adult children residing away from home for university studies.

Following a successful Hague Convention application for the return of the parties' child to Ohio, the applicant father sought $52,000 in costs.

The respondent mother argued the bill was excessive and noted the father's failure to comply with undertakings and pay child support.

The court found the father's bill of costs excessive, noting unreasonable hourly rates for clerks and students, duplicated work, and improper billing practices.

Due to the excessive bill and the father's non-compliance with undertakings, the court fixed costs at $20,000, payable by the mother at $200 per month given her financial circumstances.

In a Hague Convention return application, the moving party sought the child’s return to Ohio after removal to Ontario.

The court determined the child’s habitual residence was Ohio immediately before the April 24, 2025 removal and found the removal wrongful under the Convention.

The court rejected defences of consent or acquiescence and grave risk of harm or intolerable situation under Article 13.

The court ordered the child’s immediate return to Ohio, subject to undertakings, and declined to order police enforcement at this stage.

This decision addresses interim parenting arrangements and school registration for the child of Jason Kyle Sheedy and Karen Nadine Shackelton following their separation.

The court considered the best interests of the child, the parties' conflicting evidence, and the need for stability.

The court ordered that the child be enrolled at Caradoc Public School and set out a detailed interim parenting schedule, balancing time between both parents and emphasizing the importance of following court orders.

This family law trial addressed the allocation of parenting time for three young children.

The father sought equal parenting time, arguing it would reduce conflict and affirm his role.

The mother sought to maintain the existing interim biweekly schedule, emphasizing the children's need for a stable "home base." The court, prioritizing the children's best interests, ordered the continuation of the mother's proposed regular parenting schedule, finding it more practical and stable given the children's ages, school, and the distance between homes.

However, the court granted the father's request for a week-about schedule during summer holidays, recognizing the reduced logistical pressures during that period.

The decision highlighted ongoing parental conflict and the importance of child-focused communication.

This case involves cross-motions in a family law dispute following a divorce order incorporating minutes of settlement.

The applicant sought to deduct alleged damages to the matrimonial home from the respondent's equalization and spousal support payment, and also sought punitive damages.

The respondent sought the immediate release of her $190,000 payment.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the damage claims were not properly before the Family Court as they were not pleaded and the applicant failed to comply with a condition precedent in the divorce order requiring a written estimate of deliberate damage exceeding $5,000 from an appraiser or realtor.

The respondent's motion for payment was allowed.

The applicant brought a motion within her Motion to Change seeking non-dissipation and vesting orders against the respondent's assets, primarily to secure an unfulfilled pension equalization payment and potentially revive spousal support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation by the respondent or to establish a prima facie case for spousal support, as the spousal support release remained valid.

The court noted that both parties shared responsibility for delays in pension division.

Following a complex family law trial where the respondent was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant failed to file costs submissions.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, finding the respondent beat his offer on the equalization issue but not on all issues.

The court noted the applicant's unreasonable and obstructive behaviour throughout the litigation, which caused significant delay and wasted resources.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $125,000 on a partial recovery basis, to be credited against the equalization payment owed to the applicant.

The parties separated after a 6.5-year marriage.

The court resolved corollary issues including equalization, child support, spousal support, and property damage.

The court found the applicant to be a highly uncredible witness.

The applicant's claims for child support and ongoing spousal support were dismissed, with the court finding the respondent did not stand in the place of a parent to her son, and that her entitlement to spousal support had expired.

The court awarded the respondent $120,000 in damages in tort, finding the applicant intentionally turned off the furnaces in the matrimonial home, causing the pipes to freeze and burst.

An equalization payment of $1,544,025 was ordered payable to the applicant, subject to significant credits in favour of the respondent.

This trial addressed custody, care schedule, child support, and a constructive trust claim between unmarried parents.

The court granted sole custody of the child to the respondent mother, Amanda Mattson, finding that joint custody was not in the child's best interests due to the parents' significant communication difficulties and mistrust.

The applicant father, Matthew Bruce Ince, was granted an expanded care schedule, including alternating weekends and shared summer holidays, but his proposed equal 2-2-3 schedule was rejected as too disruptive.

Child support was set at $1,079 per month, with annual adjustments.

The court also found unjust enrichment regarding the mother's contributions to the father's former home and ordered the father to pay the mother $8,780.50.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property, including the value of a Polish property held by the respondent's father in trust for the respondent, and lump-sum spousal support.

The court found the respondent to be the beneficial owner of the Polish property, including its value in his net family property for equalization purposes.

The court also awarded lump-sum and retroactive spousal support, finding the respondent intentionally depleted assets and moved to Poland to avoid his support obligations.

The respondent was successful at trial after the applicant reneged on a settlement agreement and misled the court by denying its existence.

The court permanently stayed $8,200 in prior costs awards made against the respondent, finding it would be an undeserved windfall for the applicant.

The court awarded the self-represented respondent $7,500 in substantial indemnity costs for the trial, finding the applicant's conduct constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The parties, married in 1998 and separated in 2016, sought interim orders regarding parenting, child support, s. 7 expenses, and the matrimonial home.

The court granted primary residence of the five daughters to the applicant mother, establishing a shared care schedule for the younger children and allowing the 16-year-old to determine her own access with the respondent father.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support of $2,422 monthly and contribute 86% to s. 7 expenses.

A 45-day window was set for the applicant to buy out the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home, failing which the property would be listed for sale.

Ancillary relief included designating the applicant and children as beneficiaries of health/fringe benefits and the applicant as the sole beneficiary of the respondent's life insurance.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision finding that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement, which the appellant subsequently breached and frustrated.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review, finding ample support in the record, including the appellant's own testimony and email exchanges, for the trial judge's conclusions.

The court also upheld the trial judge's remedy, which aimed to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the agreement been performed, noting that the properties had since been sold.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Following the breakdown of a short marriage, the applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, repayment of certain loans, occupation rent, and an accounting for post‑separation rental income relating to three jointly owned properties.

The respondent argued that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement during litigation under which she would receive one property and a payment from the proceeds of another after a severance of land.

The court found that the parties had indeed entered into a binding settlement agreement through email communications during the litigation.

The applicant breached that agreement by refusing to cooperate with the severance process and forcing the sale of the properties.

Because specific performance was no longer possible after the sales, the court ordered distribution of sale proceeds to approximate the settlement terms and dismissed the applicant’s remaining claims.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage, leaving two young daughters in the primary care of the applicant mother.

The respondent father sought joint custody and shared residence, while the applicant sought sole custody.

The court found that the parties' high level of conflict and inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable, awarding sole custody to the applicant.

The court also modified the access schedule to provide more stability for the children.

Additionally, the court imputed income to the respondent based on his undeclared earnings as a sports referee, setting his income for child support purposes at $90,000, and ordered him to contribute to section 7 daycare expenses.