Mark P. Shelston

The parties separated in 2019 after a six-year relationship.

The applicant mother moved to Ottawa with the child in 2020 to pursue employment and education, while the respondent father remained in Cobden to work as a dentist.

Following a trial, the court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and primary residence with the mother, with a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The court found the mother entitled to compensatory spousal support due to her role as primary caregiver while the father attended dental school, ordering $4,000 per month for four years.

The court also imputed an annual income of $24,000 to the mother while she pursued her master's degree, and ordered her to pay an equalization payment and post-separation adjustments for the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a motion seeking permission to relocate with the child to Petawawa, Ontario, due to a military posting.

The applicant opposed this request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that there were serious credibility and factual issues that could not be resolved on an interim motion.

The court noted the respondent's failure to provide sufficient evidence of compelling circumstances for the transfer or that she had explored alternatives to delay the transfer.

The proposed relocation would significantly reduce the child's parenting time with the applicant.

The matter was ordered to proceed to trial on a priority basis to determine decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule.

This case involves a high-conflict family law dispute over a 13-year-old child.

The respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child from the applicant father, violating a final parenting order for an alternating week-about schedule, and subsequently filed a motion to change seeking sole decision-making.

The father brought a motion for contempt and enforcement of the existing order.

The court found that the mother knowingly refused to comply with the order and attempted to create a new status quo.

While the elements of contempt were met, the court opted for other avenues to ensure compliance.

The mother failed to prove a material and compelling change in circumstances to justify a temporary variation of the final order.

The court ordered a gradual reintroduction of the alternating week-about schedule, emphasizing that the mother's unilateral actions had negatively impacted the child's mental health and relationship with the father.

The applicant sought leave to commence a motion to set aside a final order and for an order regarding parenting time with his child, alleging parental alienation.

The respondent opposed, seeking payment of outstanding cost awards, a declaration that the applicant is a vexatious litigant, and security for costs.

The court denied the applicant's motion, finding no grounds under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside the previous order, and that the child was over 18, thus beyond the court's jurisdiction for parenting time.

The court granted the respondent's request, declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and repeated unsuccessful litigation, and ordered security for costs.

This motion addressed whether J.A. qualified as a "parent" of the child A.H.H. under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The court examined the definitions of "settled intention" and "lawful custody" as per Section 74(1) of the CYFSA.

J.A. failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a settled intention to treat A.H.H. as his child, citing vague details, lack of consistent financial support, and failure to assert legal rights during periods of separation.

The court also found that J.A. did not have lawful custody, as there was no court order or written agreement.

Consequently, J.A.'s motion to be declared a parent was dismissed.

The parties separated after an eight-year relationship during which they had three children.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, restricted parenting time for the respondent father, child support, spousal support, and $400,000 for unjust enrichment.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and significantly expanded the father's parenting time, finding the mother had unjustifiably restricted his access.

The court imputed an income of $82,768 to the self-employed father and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

The mother's claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment were dismissed, as the court imputed a part-time income to her and found no evidence of a joint family venture regarding the father's farming assets.

This family law trial addressed decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and a minor claim for reimbursement.

The court implemented a parallel parenting regime, granting the mother sole decision-making for medical care and the father for education, dental, and extracurricular activities, with mutual consultation.

The existing week-about parenting schedule was maintained.

The father's claim for cellphone reimbursement was dismissed.

Child support arrears were calculated, and ongoing payments were ordered based on the set-off method.

This trial addressed decision-making responsibility, parenting time, the mother's request to relocate, child support, and spousal support.

The court implemented a parallel parenting regime, granting the father sole decision-making for education and extracurriculars, and the mother for medical care, both with consultation obligations.

The mother's request to relocate the child to Welland was denied, as it was deemed not in the child's best interests due to the significant interference with the father's relationship and the unreasonableness of the proposed travel plan.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income, and the mother's income imputation was declined.

The applicant child protection agency brought a Wagg motion seeking production of the complete Crown Brief regarding pending criminal charges against the respondent father for sexual offences against his child.

The Attorney General opposed production, arguing it could prejudice the ongoing criminal prosecution and taint witnesses.

The court granted the motion, finding that the agency met the test under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules and that the rights and interests of the parties in the child protection proceeding outweighed any possible prejudice to the Attorney General in the criminal proceedings.

The parties, parents of two children, sought a determination on decision-making responsibility, holiday schedules, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses following a high-conflict separation.

The court ordered that the respondent father have final decision-making responsibility for education, while the applicant mother have final decision-making responsibility for medical issues, including the authority to have the children vaccinated against Covid-19.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40% shared custody threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered him to pay $25,050 in retroactive child support.

Claims for section 7 expenses were largely dismissed due to a lack of consultation, though a small amount for tutoring was awarded.

The father brought a motion to compel the mother to return to Ottawa with their two children or, alternatively, for primary residence.

The mother had relocated to Smith Falls without notice or consent, citing domestic violence and safety concerns.

The mother brought a cross-motion to remain in Smith Falls and reduce the father's parenting time.

The court found the mother was justified in moving without notice due to credible threats to her safety, exempting her from the notice requirements under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the mother in Smith Falls, but dismissed the mother's request to reduce the father's weekend parenting time, maintaining the status quo.

Following a trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining equalization and spousal support, while the respondent was successful in obtaining a finding of parental alienation and limiting spousal support.

The court found the applicant's alienating conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Balancing the divided success, the applicant's bad faith, and the respondent's excessive costs claims, the court ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

The maternal grandmother sought an order extending the statutory timeline to file an openness application regarding her two grandchildren, who had been placed for adoption.

She argued the adoptive parents breached a voluntary openness agreement and asked the court to use its parens patriae jurisdiction to extend the timeline and enforce the agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an openness agreement is not enforceable as a court order and that the specific facts did not justify exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, as doing so would further delay permanency for the children.

The parties separated and the mother unilaterally relocated to France with their 16-month-old child without the father's consent.

The father brought an urgent motion for the child's return to Ottawa, while the mother sought permission to relocate, alleging family violence.

The court found insufficient evidence of family violence to justify the unilateral move and ordered the mother to return the child to Ottawa, establishing a temporary parenting schedule.

This is a costs endorsement following a 17-day family law trial.

The court assessed costs based on the successful party principle, the importance and complexity of issues, and the reasonableness of party conduct.

The respondent was found to be the more successful party on key issues, including decision-making responsibility for children, parenting time, imputation of income, spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home, and equalization.

Both parties were found to have acted unreasonably by failing to agree on basic facts and failing to make offers to settle, with the applicant also failing to disclose income replacement benefits.

The court fixed costs at $47,500 in favour of the respondent.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The applicant mother sought to set aside a marriage contract signed days before the wedding, claiming she did not understand its nature or consequences.

The court agreed and set aside the contract, awarding the mother an equalization payment of $289,170.15 and spousal support of $3,636 per month for seven years.

On parenting, the court found the mother had engaged in parental alienation, severely damaging the father's relationship with the 16-year-old child.

The court ordered joint decision-making and mandatory reunification counselling, with costs of the counselling to be shared equally.

The parties brought temporary motions concerning child support, spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home and a motor vehicle, and financial disclosure.

The court ordered the respondent to provide extensive financial disclosure, finding his previous behaviour unreasonable.

It ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home with specific terms, including a $100,000 retention from the respondent's share for equalization.

The court rejected the respondent's request to impute income to the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay $1,299 monthly child support and $4,000 monthly spousal support, with a portion of the spousal support being a third-party payment for housing expenses until the home's sale.

The respondent was also ordered to maintain life insurance to secure support.

The applicant father sought a temporary order to change the children's primary residence from the respondent mother's care to his, pending a final hearing of his Motion to Change.

The respondent mother sought dismissal of the motion and an order varying the children's exchange point.

The court found no compelling and urgent need to change the children's primary residence on an interim basis, noting the high burden of proof for such a change and the risks of disturbing the status quo based on untested affidavit evidence.

The father's motion for change of primary residence was dismissed.

The mother's request to vary the exchange point was also denied, as no urgent need was demonstrated.

This decision provides supplemental reasons for judgment following a trial, addressing outstanding issues of retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, section 7 expenses, and life insurance as security.

The court determined the duration and quantum of spousal support, denied most of the respondent's claims for additional section 7 expenses due to lack of notice or proof, and declined to order life insurance security due to lack of evidence on insurability, instead ordering the support obligation to be binding on the payor's estate.

The court also calculated the final financial reconciliation between the parties.

The applicant, Pauline Gay, sought costs after successfully obtaining a more favourable order than her settlement offer.

The court found that while the applicant's offer did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for full indemnity costs, it could still be considered in determining costs.

The respondent's conduct during litigation, including lack of candour and credibility, and failure to file a detailed bill of costs, was also considered.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $25,000, payable immediately.