Mark A. Simpson

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.

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 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.

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.