Mark P. Shelston

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought summary judgment to place three children (E.S., J.S., R.S.) in the legal custody of their maternal grandparents, with discretionary access for the parents.

The mother opposed, seeking the children's return or a supervision order.

The court dismissed the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial.

These issues included the admissibility and apparent contradiction of medical evidence regarding the children's initial physical condition and developmental delays, and a significant change in the mother's bail conditions which allowed her to present a plan of care.

The court emphasized that summary judgment requires a full evidentiary record and should not be granted where material facts are in dispute or credibility is an issue.

The applicant father sought the return of his two children to England under the Hague Convention.

The mother had moved to Canada with the children under a temporary relocation agreement but later refused to return them.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in England, the father had custody rights which he was exercising, and he did not consent or acquiesce to their permanent relocation.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention, finding no grave risk of harm.

The application was granted and the children were ordered returned to England.

The applicant father sought the return of his 12-year-old child to Brazil under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent mother in Ontario.

The mother conceded the retention was wrongful but raised defences under Article 13, arguing a grave risk of harm and that the child objected to returning.

The court found insufficient evidence of a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

While acknowledging the child was mature and objected to returning, the court concluded the child's reasons were not substantial enough to meet the exceptional circumstances required to override the mandatory return provisions.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Brazil.

The parties separated after a 31-year marriage during which both had successful careers in the public service.

The applicant sought spousal support, equalization of net family property, and life insurance to secure support.

The court found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, noting she assumed primary childcare responsibilities which allowed the respondent to advance to Deputy Minister.

The court determined the commencement date for support, valued the parties' pensions using standard mortality, and addressed post-separation income increases and double-dipping.

The respondent was ordered to pay a lump sum for retroactive support, ongoing periodic support, and to designate the applicant as beneficiary on life insurance policies.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage with four children.

At trial, the remaining issues were the determination of each party's income for child support purposes, section 7 expenses, and security for support.

The court imputed an income of $24,000 to the applicant, finding she was intentionally underemployed having not worked since 2005.

The court rejected the applicant's request to impute an income of $250,000 to the respondent based on past income splitting with his father's company, setting his income at his actual salary of $103,268.

The court determined which extracurricular activities qualified as section 7 expenses and ordered the respondent to apply for life insurance to secure his child support obligations.

The appellant, a patient at a mental health centre, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board.

A teleconference was scheduled to set dates for factums and the appeal hearing, but the self-represented appellant failed to attend.

The court ordered deadlines for the filing of factums and scheduled a motion requested by the respondent for an Interim Treatment Order under section 19 of the Health Care Consent Act.

Following a motion dealing with custody, access, child support, and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

While success on the motion was largely divided, the respondent was successful on the significant issue of spousal support.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's decision to litigate in French was unreasonable or warranted higher costs.

After considering the offers to settle and the principles of family law costs, the court ordered the applicant to pay $4,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant brought a successful motion for a temporary order to enroll the parties' child in a new school.

Both parties subsequently sought costs for the motion.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, despite her unilateral action in changing the child's school prior to obtaining a court order.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $4,673.76 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues from a prior motion, including the appointment of a parenting assessor, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court appointed Dr. Pérusse as the parenting assessor, ordering both parties to equally share the assessment and translation costs due to a language barrier.

Nadine Lachapelle was ordered to pay Rebecca Leblanc $498 per month in child support and $1200 per month in temporary spousal support, both retroactive to March 1, 2016.

Rebecca Leblanc was ordered to contribute $125 per month to daycare expenses.

Directions for costs submissions were also provided.

This decision addresses costs following competing motions for temporary relief regarding access and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court granted supervised access to the child at the father's expense, while also granting the father's request for OCL appointment.

The court found the mother largely successful on the access motion but noted unreasonable delay in advancing her position.

Considering the divided success and the mother's conduct, the court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $1,400.00, inclusive of HST, payable by the father.

The parties, parents of a five-year-old child, brought multiple motions for temporary orders regarding custody, parenting schedule, exchange time, right of first refusal, choice of dentist and school, parenting assessment, co-parenting counselling, holiday sharing, police enforcement, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court declined to make an order for temporary sole custody due to high conflict, instead addressing specific major decisions.

The court ordered the child to continue attending her current French school and to continue treatment with her current dentist.

The exchange time was set at 3:45 pm, and requests for police enforcement and specific holiday schedules for 2017 were dismissed.

Several issues, including child support, spousal support, and the parenting assessment, were deferred for further information.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for her eldest daughter, Nora, to attend École Trille des Bois and its after-school daycare program, following her relocation to a new school district.

The respondent father opposed, requesting Nora remain at École Élémentaire Francojeunesse, the school she previously attended.

The court, noting the high-conflict nature of the parties' litigation and the father's lack of a viable alternative plan for Nora's daily care, granted the mother's motion on a temporary, without prejudice basis.

The judge found the mother's plan to be in the child's best interests, as it provided a comprehensive solution for school and daycare without requiring a variation of the father's limited access schedule.

The father's credibility was also questioned regarding his claims of ignorance about the mother's address and the child's bus travel history.

The mother brought a motion to suspend the father's access to their child after the father was charged with assaulting the mother in the child's presence.

The father brought a cross-motion to reinstate his access, proposing to parent the child at a friend's home.

The court reviewed the history of high conflict litigation and the father's failure to exercise his previously ordered access.

Finding that the child required protection from the conflict, the court suspended the father's previous access rights and ordered supervised access at a professional centre.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order for the return of three children to their mother's care, subject to supervision and conditions, after apprehending them due to deplorable living conditions and neglect.

The mother supported this, while the fathers of two children opposed, seeking continued placement with them or foster care.

The court found a significant risk of harm but determined that the proposed supervision order, with amendments including the permanent removal of pets and mandatory program completion, was sufficient to mitigate the risk, emphasizing the least intrusive course of action.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought summary judgment for Crown wardship of the child K.T.B. with no access for the natural parents, J.T. (mother) and J.B. (father).

The motion was brought under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and sections 1, 37, and 57 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the Society met its evidentiary burden, and the parents failed to present a genuine issue for trial, demonstrating a lack of insight into the child's best interests, inconsistent access, and failure to address domestic violence and mental health issues.

The court granted Crown wardship without access, emphasizing the child's need for stability and permanence.

The court addressed a father's interim motion to relocate with the children from Ottawa to Hamilton for university, which was opposed by the mother.

The decision emphasizes the court's reluctance to disrupt the status quo on an interim basis, particularly in mobility cases, without a comprehensive child-focused inquiry.

The motion to relocate was dismissed, and the children were ordered to remain in their current city pending a final adjudication.

No interim custody order was made, but the children's primary residence remained with the father, and the mother's existing access schedule was maintained.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of six children following their apprehension from the father's home.

The father had been experiencing severe mental health issues, including paranoia, and the home was found in a state of disarray with unsanitary conditions.

The mother, who also struggled with mental health issues, sought the return of the children but lacked suitable housing.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would likely suffer harm if returned to either parent at this time.

The children were ordered to remain in the temporary care and custody of the Society, with supervised access granted to both parents.

Both parties sought costs following motions dealing with child support, spousal support, custody and access, and the matrimonial home.

The court found that success was divided on both the agreed-upon and disputed issues.

Considering the lack of formal offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant father sought to vary child support and access orders.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the father's application.

The court dismissed the mother's motion regarding child support, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the father's income and the proper amount of support.

The court adjourned the motion regarding access, ordering an updated report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the 13-year-old child's current wishes before determining if a genuine issue for trial exists.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought a final order of Crown wardship for adoption for the child B. The respondent mother and father opposed, proposing the child be returned to the mother under a supervision order.

The court found the father had a history of domestic violence, lacked insight, and showed minimal commitment to addressing issues or exercising access.

The mother consistently prioritized her relationship with the father over the child's safety, lied to the Society, and failed to implement recommended therapies or parenting courses.

Considering the child's best interests and the parents' lack of commitment to rehabilitation, the court granted Crown wardship for adoption to the paternal uncle and his partner, with structured access for both parents.