Mark P. Shelston

The court issued a costs endorsement following previous orders for costs submissions in two related family law files.

The respondent, William Ndze Fuhgeh, failed to comply with page limits and filing deadlines for his submissions, leading the court to disregard his non-compliant documentation.

The applicants, Marie Marielle Edith Bernard, and intervenors, Marc Coderre and Marie Helene Godbout, sought costs, arguing Fuhgeh's conduct amounted to an abuse of process by attempting to set aside numerous orders and incorporating excessive exhibits by reference.

Fuhgeh argued against costs, alleging judicial bias and breaches of natural justice and the Charter.

The court found Bernard and the intervenors were successful, Fuhgeh's conduct constituted an abuse of process, and awarded costs to Bernard ($950) and the intervenors ($8500).

The applicant and respondent, former cohabitants of 22 years, sought resolution on spousal support and property division.

The applicant sought indefinite spousal support and equal division of the jointly owned Arnprior property.

The respondent denied spousal support entitlement, sought repayment of previously paid support, and reimbursement for initial contributions to both the Ottawa and Arnprior properties.

The court found the applicant entitled to indefinite non-compensatory spousal support, but at a lower monthly amount than previously ordered, resulting in a significant overpayment by the respondent.

The court also determined that the respondent's initial financial contributions to the properties were intended as gifts, thus ordering an equal division of the Arnprior property's net proceeds.

The overpaid spousal support was ordered to be deducted from the applicant's share of the property proceeds.

The applicant sought an urgent motion for temporary child and spousal support during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency period.

The court, acting as the Local Administrative Judge (LAJ) for Family Law and designated to triage urgent motions, reviewed the materials.

Despite previous orders identifying support as an urgent matter, the court determined that the applicant's request did not meet the strict criteria for urgency outlined in the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020, particularly as any award of support could be made retroactively.

The motion was dismissed, with leave for the applicant to reapply if the scope of urgent hearings expanded.

This trial concerned custody and access to the parties' child, Pyper.

The father sought sole custody and limited access, citing the mother's history of drug addiction, mental illness, and alleged refusal to acknowledge the child's special needs.

The mother sought joint custody and a gradually increasing access schedule, asserting her recovery and ability to co-parent.

The court found the mother had made significant gains in her recovery and granted joint custody, emphasizing the child's best interests require both parents' involvement.

A gradual increase in the mother's access was ordered, with specific schedules for regular parenting time and holidays, and provisions for ongoing drug testing for the mother.

The applicant children's aid society sought a 120-day extension of a secure treatment order for a youth.

The youth opposed the extension, seeking to be returned to a group home.

The court found that the youth suffered from a mental disorder and that the secure treatment program was necessary to prevent the youth from causing serious bodily harm to themselves or others, particularly given a history of fleeing and impulsive behaviour.

The court concluded that no less restrictive method was appropriate and that an appropriate plan for care upon release was being developed.

The application for a 120-day extension was granted.

The father applied for sole custody of the parties' four-year-old child.

Following separation, the parties initially shared parenting on an alternating weekly schedule.

However, the mother unilaterally terminated this schedule, relocated, and engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour, including terminating the father's relationship with her older child to whom the father had stood in loco parentis.

The court found the mother lacked the ability to foster a positive relationship between the child and the father.

The father was granted sole custody, with the mother receiving specified access, and child support was ordered to commence after a grace period.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking various interim relief, including financial disclosure, release of trust funds, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and an increase in spousal support.

The court ordered the applicant husband to provide the requested financial disclosure and released $68,000 from trust to pay the wife's tax arrears.

The court dismissed the wife's requests to set aside the husband's exclusive possession and the restraining order against her.

However, the court ordered the pre-trial partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, finding the husband had not established a competing interest under the Family Law Act that would be defeated by the sale.

Interim spousal support was also increased due to a material change in the husband's income.

The applicant sought temporary orders for child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, an equalization advance, and life insurance designation.

The respondent opposed most claims, offering a lower spousal support amount.

The court found the respondent stood in loco parentis for the non-biological child, Naomi, and had child support obligations.

The applicant's income was imputed at $5,000/year and the respondent's at $164,954/year, including military allowances.

The court awarded the applicant $3,500/month in interim spousal support, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) ranges due to compelling financial circumstances.

Child support was ordered as section 7 expenses, with the applicant paying 32% ($314/month) and the respondent paying 68% ($669/month) of the determined shortfall for Naomi's post-secondary education.

The respondent was also ordered to designate the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary of $300,000 of his life insurance policy as security for spousal support.

The applicant sought an order for the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and an amendment to her application to reference the Partition Act.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing prejudice if sold before trial, and sought medical disclosure and an independent medical examination of the applicant.

The court granted the amendment and some medical disclosure by consent, and ordered the applicant to provide hospital records.

However, the applicant's motion for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home was denied, and the respondent's request for an independent medical examination was dismissed.

The court found that the trial was imminent, the applicant's financial hardship was not sufficiently proven, and the fair market value of the home was in dispute, making a pre-trial sale prejudicial to the respondent.

The applicant sought sole custody, shared parenting, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent sought joint custody with primary residence and opposed spousal support.

The court granted the divorce, awarded sole custody to the applicant with a 5-2-2-5 shared parenting schedule, finding the respondent had attempted to alienate the children and failed to act in their best interests.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support of $838 per month and spousal support of $348 per month for five years.

Equalization of net family property was settled by consent during trial.

Orders were also made regarding extended health benefits and life insurance as security for support.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought an order for temporary care and custody of two children, M. and C., pending disposition for extended Society care.

The mother sought the children's return under a supervision order, supported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court dismissed the Society's request for temporary care and custody, finding that the children could be adequately protected by a supervision order with strict conditions, and ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and control of the mother subject to the Society's supervision.

The court also ruled on the inadmissibility of hearsay statements from the children due to insufficient detail in the child protection worker's affidavit regarding the circumstances of the statements.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents pursuant to section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking a trial to have the child returned to her care.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's instability, ongoing substance abuse issues, and failure to present a viable plan of care.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to remain in the stable care of the paternal grandparents and granted them custody, with access to the parents at the grandparents' discretion.

The applicant sought child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The court determined the parties' incomes, notably excluding the applicant's RRSP withdrawals from her income for support purposes as they were necessary to meet living expenses while she received inadequate support.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support, initially on a set-off basis for shared custody and later as table support.

The court also found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, awarding mid-range support retroactive to the commencement of the application and terminating in 2025.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an interim supervision order regarding a child diagnosed with a seizure disorder and developmental delays.

The parents refused to administer recommended anti-convulsant medication, believing instead that the child suffered from an allergy, and treated the seizures with an Epi-pen.

The court found that the parents' refusal to accept the medical diagnosis and administer the recommended treatment created a significant risk of harm to the child.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the child under the interim care of the parents subject to society supervision and conditions requiring them to follow the hospital's medical recommendations.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful on issues of custody and child support, the applicant sought costs of $78,656.48 on a full recovery basis.

The court found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to provide disclosure, failing to prepare for trial, and ignoring multiple reasonable offers to settle made by the applicant.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Furthermore, the court ordered that the entire costs award be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as child support pursuant to section 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

This decision addresses a motion by the biological great aunt of a child to be added as a party in a custody application initiated by a non-biological caregiver.

The child's father is deceased, and the mother has disappeared.

The court considered the discretion to add parties under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, applying criteria from relevant case law, including the child's best interests, potential for delay, necessity, and the proposed party's plan.

Finding the circumstances unusual and that all relevant information was necessary for a just determination of the child's best interests, the court granted the great aunt's motion to be added as a party.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $54,767.35 following a trial where she was successful in obtaining spousal support.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was not a credible witness, engaged in bad faith conduct, and caused delays through late disclosure.

However, the court reduced the costs award because the applicant withdrew a $36,028.69 debt claim at the end of the trial.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $40,000 in costs, enforceable as spousal support by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought temporary sole custody of the parties' four-year-old daughter in Ottawa, while the respondent sought to return to Belgrade, Serbia, with the child.

The court considered the child's best interests, the status quo, and mobility factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and relevant jurisprudence.

The court found the child's status quo since June 15, 2018, was residence in Belgrade, Serbia, and no compelling circumstances existed to change this temporarily.

Temporary custody was granted to the respondent, permitting her to return to Serbia with the child, with a detailed access schedule for the applicant.

This trial addressed custody and access for two children, Mathieu and Alexandre, along with retroactive and prospective table child support, section 7 expenses, extended health coverage, security for child support, and costs.

The applicant sought sole custody, emphasizing her role as the primary caregiver and the respondent's failure to administer medication for their special needs child.

The respondent alleged parental alienation and sought sole custody or joint custody.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the applicant, finding the respondent's conduct and lack of insight into the children's needs detrimental.

The court also imputed income to the respondent due to intentional under-employment and ordered child support and arrears, along with contributions to daycare and hockey expenses.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought a protection order for two children, D.R. and D.J., proposing specific placement plans.

The maternal grandmother sought an order for the children to be placed in her care.

The court found the children in need of protection.

Considering the mother's significant recent remedial steps to address mental health, addiction, and domestic violence issues, and D.J.'s consistent preference to live with his mother, the court ordered D.R. into the joint temporary care and custody of her mother, maternal grandfather, and his wife, and D.J. into the temporary care and custody of his mother, both subject to Society supervision.

The maternal grandmother's request for placement was denied, with the court affording little weight to D.R.'s views due to suspected influence.