Mark P. Shelston

The applicant sought a divorce, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding alleged debts to third parties and the value of pottery retained by the applicant to be not credible, excluding them from the equalization calculation.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $74,804.80, child support arrears of $15,288, and adjustments for a joint line of credit.

A divorce order was granted.

The parties separated after a 7.5-year cohabitation during which the applicant supported the respondent's military career, resulting in economic disadvantage.

The court granted a divorce and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $40,254.55.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, including the respondent's non-taxable military allowances in his income.

Spousal support was ordered at $1,393 per month, terminating in May 2022 after a total duration of 69 months.

The applicant's requests to remain on the respondent's health and life insurance plans long-term were dismissed.

The parties separated in 2014 after a five-year relationship and having three children, one of whom has special needs.

The applicant sought joint decision-making, an alternating-week parenting schedule, and to purchase the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted sole decision-making and primary residence to the respondent, finding the parties could not communicate effectively and the respondent had been the primary caregiver.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $175,000 due to his lifestyle and retained corporate earnings, ordered the matrimonial home to be sold, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant at $134,868.13.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding equalization, alleging a mistake in the valuation of her pension.

The applicant claimed her actuary was provided incorrect information regarding her pension buyback status, resulting in an overvaluation of her pension and a lower equalization payment from the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the pension administrator provided the incorrect information to the actuary, and concluding that the mistake was not mutual and did not negate the common intention of the parties at the time of the settlement.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary parenting schedule and the appointment of a parenting capacity assessor pending trial.

The respondent mother consented to the appointment of the assessor but proposed a more restrictive parenting schedule.

The court ordered the appointment of the agreed-upon assessor with costs shared equally.

Finding no evidence of risk to the child and emphasizing the need to foster the father-child relationship, the court expanded the applicant's parenting time and assumed case management of the proceeding.

The parties, engaged in high conflict litigation over parenting time, consented to a temporary order appointing a parenting coordinator.

The parenting coordinator subsequently issued two interim awards that increased the applicant's parenting time and ordered the appointment of a custody assessor.

The respondent sought to terminate the parenting coordination process and set aside the awards, while the applicant sought to enforce them.

The court found that the parenting coordinator exceeded her jurisdiction by making significant changes to the residential schedule without a mediation/arbitration agreement.

The court set aside the awards, terminated the parenting coordination process, and directed the parties to file written submissions for a temporary parenting schedule.

On an interim family motion, the applicant sought retroactive and increased ongoing spousal support, and a determination of whether child support for an adult child had ended.

The court held that conflicting affidavit evidence and unresolved income issues made retroactive relief inappropriate on an interim record, particularly where the applicant was effectively seeking final relief before trial.

The court found prima facie entitlement to spousal support, but maintained the status quo at the amount fixed in the parties' addendum because there was no demonstrated financial hardship or urgency.

Child support was terminated as of December 31, 2020 based on the respondent's admission, with any earlier termination date left for trial.

This case involved a divorce and a claim for non-compensatory spousal support by the respondent (husband) against the applicant (wife) after a 42-year cohabitation.

The parties had lived financially separate lives for the latter 18 years of their relationship, acting more as "roommates" with limited shared expenses.

The court granted the divorce and found the respondent entitled to transitional spousal support, but at a significantly lower amount and for a limited duration than he sought.

The judge rejected the respondent's proposed budget as unrealistic and found his decision to retain a large matrimonial home unreasonable, emphasizing that the support should reflect the actual shared standard of living during the period of financial separation.

This motion concerned a temporary order regarding the schooling of the parties' only child, Zachary.

The father sought an order for the child to attend Robert Hopkins Public School in person, while the mother sought for the child to remain at Knoxdale Public School, online.

The mother had unilaterally registered the child at Knoxdale after previously agreeing to Manor Park.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" principle under the amended Divorce Act, considering factors such as stability, parental cooperation, and the child's health risks (respiratory issues and incontinence) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case involved a high-conflict divorce trial concerning custody, access, child and spousal support, income determination, section 7 expenses, security for support, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and a restraining order.

The court addressed the parents' inability to co-parent effectively, their unilateral actions, and the impact on their children.

The judge granted sole custody decision-making to the father, ordered a week-about parenting schedule, determined retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, and calculated equalization payments.

The mother appealed a trial decision placing her two children in extended society care and ordering that access for the mother, older sister, and grandmother be at the discretion of the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court upheld the extended society care order, dismissing the mother's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding that the trial judge erred in law by delegating the determination of the type, frequency, and duration of access entirely to the Society.

The matter of access was remitted to the trial judge.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order regarding the children's schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking an order that they attend in person.

The respondent father opposed, arguing for online learning due to his alleged immunocompromised status.

The court found the father failed to provide medical evidence of an unacceptable risk to his health.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court ordered the children to attend school in person when it resumes.

The court declined to order the use of Our Family Wizard but imposed communication rules.

Following the death of the children's mother, the maternal grandmother and the non-biological father figure both sought temporary custody and primary residence of the two young children.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the children's need for stability after multiple recent moves.

The court ordered that the children reside with the grandmother during the school week to facilitate online learning, and with the father figure on weekends.

No temporary order for legal custody was made, but the father figure was granted medical decision-making authority.

This endorsement addresses Mr. Fuhgeh's motion to set aside numerous interim, interlocutory, and final orders in two separate family law proceedings involving Ms. Bernard and Ms. Stewart, and to strike parts of his affidavit.

The court, acting as case management judge, dismissed Mr. Fuhgeh's requests to set aside final orders in the Stewart matter and most interim/interlocutory orders in the Bernard matter, finding them to be an abuse of process or irrelevant.

The court also struck Mr. Fuhgeh's affidavit in its entirety for failing to comply with previous case management endorsements and for attempting to incorporate over 2000 pages of exhibits, which was deemed an abuse of process.

Mr. Fuhgeh was ordered to file a new, compliant notice of motion and affidavit, and a transcript.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, and an advance on an equalization payment from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay net child support of $1,041 per month and spousal support of $1,172 per month.

The court declined to order an advance on the equalization payment beyond the amounts consented to by the father, as the father's pension had not yet been valued and funds needed to remain in trust to secure potential cost awards at trial.

The applicant doctor applied under section 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to admit a 17-year-old child to a secure treatment program for 180 days.

The child, who suffered from severe depressive disorder and had a history of numerous suicide attempts and self-harm, opposed the application.

The court found that all six criteria under section 164 were met, including that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had recently attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application was granted, and the child was committed to the secure treatment program for 180 days.

Following a family law trial regarding spousal support and property division, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, arguing he was the most successful party and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The respondent argued for full recovery costs based on divided success and an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party, having succeeded on periodic spousal support, security for support, and property division.

After considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees claimed, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant fixed costs of $150,000.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The parties, who share joint custody of their six-year-old child, disagreed on where the child should attend grade one.

The mother proposed a French language school midway between their residences, while the father proposed a French immersion school near his home in Kanata.

The court considered the child's best interests, including the father's disability, transportation logistics, and the parties' respective work schedules.

The court ordered the child to attend the father's proposed school, finding it better accommodated the father's needs and reduced overall travel time, while still meeting the child's linguistic needs.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing four children in its temporary care and custody following an incident where the mother allowed unapproved individuals into the home, breaching a previous supervision order.

The parents sought the return of the children under a new supervision order.

The court found that while the mother breached the order by allowing unapproved visitors, the parents had otherwise acted responsibly and were addressing the children's needs.

The court ordered that all four children be returned to the temporary care and custody of the parents, subject to strict conditions under a supervision order.