Mark P. Shelston

Following the release of reasons for judgment in a family law matter, the parties requested clarifications and corrections regarding life insurance obligations and spousal support indexation.

The court corrected the name of the life insurer and the details of the respondent's death benefit.

The court also ordered that spousal support be indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index and permitted the respondent to apply in the future to reduce the required life insurance amount.

The applicant's request to vary the quantum of spousal support based on new evidence was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion after the respondent mother unilaterally moved with their child to Plantagenet and changed the child's school without his consent.

The mother argued the move was within the 25-kilometer geographical restriction in their joint custody order and thus not a material change in circumstances.

The court rejected the mother's argument, finding that the move and school change constituted a major decision requiring joint consent under the order.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the original school's catchment area and registered there for the upcoming school year.

The applicant sought costs following the respondent's unsuccessful motion to change, where the court had dismissed the respondent's request to vary child support and imputed income to him.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the majority of issues, particularly the financial issues, which were complex due to the respondent's deliberate attempts to mislead the court about his income.

The court determined the respondent acted in bad faith by consciously attempting to conceal his actual income to reduce his child support obligation.

Considering the applicant's success and the respondent's bad faith, the court ordered the respondent to pay $20,000 in costs, with $10,000 enforceable as child support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant, having been the more successful party in a ten-day family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, arrears, life insurance, and equalization, sought partial and full indemnity costs.

The respondent argued for divided success and sought costs based on her offers to settle.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, noting the importance and difficulty of the custody issues.

While the applicant made no formal offers, both parties demonstrated reasonable behaviour in attempts to settle.

The court assessed the reasonableness of counsel's rates and the time spent, adjusting for prior cost awards and excessive hours claimed by the applicant.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The court determined costs following a motion to change involving custody, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The father was awarded $2,500 for an earlier motion where he successfully sought the return of the child.

No costs were awarded for a consent order reached at a case conference.

On the main motion, the mother was the more successful party, having been granted sole custody and retroactive child support.

The court fixed the mother's costs at $11,300.

After offsetting the awards, the father was ordered to pay the mother a net amount of $8,800.

This trial concerned the best interests of a six-year-old child, Xavier, regarding custody and mobility.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child from Kingston, Ontario, to Edmonton, Alberta, due to a Canadian Armed Forces transfer.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and for the child to move to Montréal.

The court conducted a thorough credibility assessment, finding the father to be a direct and forthright witness, while finding the mother not credible due to inconsistencies, false financial statements, and attempts to mislead the court.

The court granted the father sole custody and permission to relocate, determining that his plan offered greater stability and was in the child's best interests.

The mother was granted specified access, with travel costs shared, and ordered to pay retroactive child support for 2016.

This supplementary endorsement clarifies and corrects a previous decision regarding Section 7 expenses.

The court confirmed that volleyball expenses are to be included as Section 7 expenses, resolving an inconsistency.

It also agreed to exclude Manotick Massage expenses, resulting in a reduction of the total amount owing by the applicant to $3,036.49.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that the parties had entered into a binding partial agreement on December 22, 2016, concerning the transfer of the applicant's interest in a maple grove company located in Quebec.

The applicant opposed, arguing that essential terms of the agreement were not settled.

The court found that while some terms like price and payment were discussed, other crucial issues, including security for payments, indemnification for company expenses, and the resolution of a third-party claim, remained unresolved.

The court concluded that the parties had only reached an agreement in principle, not a binding contract, as all essential terms were not agreed upon.

Consequently, the respondent's motion was dismissed.

The court also issued orders for further financial disclosure from both parties.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order, seeking sole custody of the child, child support from the father, and reimbursement of child support previously paid.

The father sought to maintain sole custody or joint custody, shared parenting, and retention of funds paid into an RESP.

The court granted the mother sole custody, ordered the father to pay retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and to return the child's personal funds and belongings.

The court emphasized the child's wishes and the father's unhelpful conduct in determining the child's best interests.

This trial addressed custody, parenting schedule, child support, and life insurance for the parties' child.

The court ordered joint custody, an equal residential schedule, and found shared custody for child support purposes, resulting in no ongoing table child support from June 1, 2017, due to equal incomes.

Arrears were calculated, and both parents were ordered to maintain life insurance for the child.

A divorce order was also issued.

The applicant and respondent, divorced parents of two children, brought cross-motions to change a prior divorce order regarding child support and access.

The respondent sought to vary child support obligations retroactively, terminate life insurance security, and modify access, citing a material change in circumstances due to health issues and reduced income.

The applicant opposed these variations and sought to restrict the respondent's travel with the children due to flight risk concerns.

The court found the respondent not credible regarding his income and lifestyle, imputing an income of $82,000 for most years, except for 2015 where a reduced income was imputed due to health.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to vary child support arrears and penalty clauses.

It also denied the respondent's request for international travel with the children, confining access to Canada due to flight risk, but increased the respondent's regular and summer access time.

The obligation for life insurance was replaced with a first charge on the respondent's estate.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions for temporary relief regarding their child.

The father, who had been convicted of sexually assaulting the mother, sought gradually increasing access, while the mother sought sole custody and to terminate any access.

The court found that the mother had previously consented to an order for supervised access and denied her request to appeal it.

Applying the principle that terminating access is a remedy of last resort, the court ordered temporary supervised access for the father for one hour twice a month.

The court also granted the mother temporary sole custody and dispensed with the father's consent for travel and schooling.

The respondent, Brent, sought to vary child and spousal support, post-secondary education provisions, and life insurance obligations retroactively due to job loss.

The applicant, Tracey, opposed these variations and sought to impute income to Brent and an order for lump sum spousal support.

The court found Brent's job loss constituted a material change in circumstances and declined to impute income to him.

Child support was retroactively adjusted, resulting in an overpayment by Brent.

Post-secondary expenses were to be shared proportionally based on current incomes, reducing Brent's contribution.

Spousal support was set to zero from January 1, 2014, onwards, though entitlement was not terminated.

Tracey's request for lump sum spousal support was denied, and life insurance obligations were significantly reduced.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought a protection order for the child M., requesting placement with the father under supervision.

The mother sought the child's return to her care with supervision.

The Society's concerns included the mother's volatile behavior, lack of insight, mental health, and attachment issues, exacerbated by the presence of an individual with a history of domestic violence.

The court found that the Society failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the child could not be adequately protected by an order returning the child to the mother's care with strict supervision.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the mother's care, subject to extensive conditions including cooperation with the Society, participation in various counselling and parenting programs, and restrictions on individuals residing in or providing alternate care for the child.

Following an order returning the parties' children to England under the Hague Convention, the successful applicant father sought costs of $32,000.

The respondent mother argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the father was presumptively entitled to costs and acted reasonably, while noting the mother breached the parties' agreement by retaining the children in Canada.

The court awarded the father costs of $21,920.93, inclusive of legal fees, disbursements, and travel expenses.

Following a trial where the mother obtained sole decision-making responsibility but the father successfully maintained the existing access schedule and defended against most financial claims, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought $7,500 and the father sought $15,000.

The court found that success was divided equally and neither party's offer to settle was better than the final judgment.

The court exercised its discretion to order that each party bear their own costs.

Following a successful application under the Hague Convention ordering the return of the parties' child to Brazil, the applicant father sought costs of $13,500.

The respondent mother argued costs should be limited to $3,500.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's legal fees and disbursements, including a Voice of the Child Report, to be largely reasonable.

The court fixed costs payable by the mother to the father at $9,960.18 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The moving party sought to vary child and spousal support provisions contained in a Separation Agreement and a subsequent Amending Agreement.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to vary the agreements under section 17 of the Divorce Act or section 37 of the Family Law Act.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction under the Divorce Act because the agreements were not incorporated into the Divorce Order.

Under the Family Law Act, the court found it had jurisdiction to vary child support but lacked jurisdiction to vary spousal support because the parties were already divorced when the Amending Agreement was signed.

Following the death of the children's mother, the maternal grandparents commenced proceedings against the children's biological father and step-father for custody, child support, and various property claims.

The parties settled all substantive issues but could not agree on costs.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to award costs despite the settlement because there was a sufficient evidentiary record.

The court found the applicants were successful on the support issues but unsuccessful on the property claims against the step-father, and awarded the applicants costs of $6,000 against the biological father and $10,200 against the step-father.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for temporary care and custody of three children with their respective fathers, following a warrantless apprehension due to the mother's breach of a previous supervision order (pets in home) and non-cooperation with a child protection worker.

The mother sought the children's return.

The court found the mother not credible, upheld the warrantless apprehension as justified due to her non-cooperation and the prior deplorable state of the home, and determined that the risk to the children in the mother's care outweighed the emotional harm of separation.

The motion for temporary care and custody with the fathers was granted.