Mark P. Shelston

The applicant father sought to terminate child support for his eldest daughter and vary support for his youngest, along with other relief.

The respondent mother opposed and sought continued support, arrears, and costs.

The court found the mother substantially successful on all issues, including continued full table child support for both children, accelerated arrears repayment, and costs for a previously withdrawn motion.

The father's position was deemed unreasonable, and he rejected two reasonable settlement offers from the mother.

The court awarded the mother $22,500 in costs, noting the father's unreasonable conduct and the lack of detailed billing records from the mother's counsel.

This costs endorsement followed a motion to change spousal support.

The applicant initially sought termination of spousal support, later amending his position to seek variation.

The respondent sought to maintain support, obtain life insurance, and a retroactive cost-of-living adjustment.

The court varied spousal support, rejected the life insurance request, and granted a partial retroactive cost-of-living adjustment.

In determining costs, the court considered the parties' success, the reasonableness of their positions and settlement offers, and their financial circumstances.

The applicant was deemed the more successful party overall, despite his initial unreasonable position, and was awarded net costs of $4,220.83, with enforcement stayed.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of her three special needs children and permission to relocate them from Ottawa to London, Ontario.

The Children's Aid Society and the father opposed the motion, arguing that there had been no material change in circumstances since a previous order placed the children in the father's care.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that she failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances requiring an interim change in the children's placement.

Many of the allegations raised by the mother were found to have been previously considered.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for his adult daughter, who has severe developmental disabilities, and to terminate his contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the daughter remained a child of the marriage and that table support was appropriate despite her receipt of ODSP benefits.

The court found the daughter was a child of the marriage and, after conducting a means and needs analysis, concluded the presumptive table amount was appropriate.

The court dismissed the father's requests to terminate section 7 expenses and to vary access, increased his monthly arrears repayment rate, and ordered him to pay costs for a previously withdrawn motion.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where an ex parte order obtained by the applicant was set aside due to her failure to provide complete information to the court.

The court had replaced the ex parte order with an interim-interim order for joint custody and a rotating schedule.

The respondent, who was successful in having the ex parte order set aside, sought costs.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

After considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the absence of settlement offers, and counsel's rates and time spent, the court adjusted the respondent's claimed costs.

The applicant's request to defer payment of costs was denied, consistent with the Family Law Rules.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000.00 in costs to the respondent.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's evidence consisted of bare denials and failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding her history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and parenting deficits.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted summary judgment, making the children Crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

This costs endorsement followed an urgent motion regarding interim custodial arrangements for a child.

The applicant mother sought partial indemnity costs, arguing divided success and the respondent father's unreasonable behaviour.

The respondent father sought full recovery costs, claiming success on the motion.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful on the main motion regarding custody.

However, the father's actions of resorting to self-help by unilaterally removing the child from daycare and making unsubstantiated allegations about the mother's mental health were deemed unreasonable.

The court emphasized that self-help remedies in custodial matters are to be discouraged and ordered the father to pay the mother $7,500 in costs.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication and mood stabilizers.

The Board found the appellant met the first part of the capacity test (understanding information) but failed the second (appreciating foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack thereof) due to his denial of illness and active psychosis.

The Superior Court applied a reasonableness standard of review for questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The court found the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by strong medical evidence from Dr. Smith and Dr. Watts, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary residence, permission to relocate, and child support, initiating proceedings after the respondent father unilaterally retained the child from daycare.

The father sought enforcement of a separation agreement for shared custody with alternating weeks, or an equal time schedule, and disclosure regarding the mother's mental health.

The court dismissed the father's mental health allegations as unproven and condemned his self-help remedy.

On an interim-interim basis, the court ordered joint custody with a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and set an expedited case conference, deferring final determinations on custody, relocation, and the validity of the separation agreement.

The applicant obtained an ex parte order granting interim sole custody and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, along with restraining orders against the respondent.

The respondent moved to set aside this order, alleging material non-disclosure by the applicant.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide full and frank disclosure of relevant information, including positive interactions between the respondent and the children and his significant parenting involvement.

The court set aside the ex parte order and, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, issued new interim-interim orders for joint custody, children to remain in the matrimonial home, and an alternating exclusive possession schedule for the parents, along with vacating the case conference and appointing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs following two motions where the respondent's motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the applicant was granted supervised access.

The respondent argued for reserving costs to the trial judge or sought her own costs.

The court, applying Family Law Rules, found the applicant to be the more successful party and rejected deferring the costs decision.

Considering the importance of the security for costs issue and the parties' reasonable behaviour, the court awarded the applicant $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable upon the trial judge's decision on trial costs.

This costs endorsement followed motions concerning custody, access, and child support for the parties' daughter.

The applicant sought regular access and costs, while the respondent sought sole decision-making, child-led access, and child support adjustments.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, having obtained an order for gradually increasing access, while the respondent's primary requests were denied.

The respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to unilaterally varying a separation agreement, failing to negotiate, and employing delay tactics.

The court awarded the applicant $10,500 in costs, inclusive of HST, but disallowed disbursements and costs related to earlier litigation stages due to insufficient detail and prior adjudication requirements.

The applicant brought a motion to vary and replace several paragraphs of a previous custody and access order and to obtain an order preventing the respondent from signing children out of school without the applicant's consent.

The court found the respondent had repeatedly breached the existing order by taking children out of school early and keeping them home without justification.

All requested amendments were granted to clarify access times, specify return protocols for sick children, and restrict the respondent's ability to remove children from school outside of scheduled access.

This trial decision addresses divorce, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a difficult marriage.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional under-employment and an unreasonable job search, while finding the applicant's pursuit of a teaching degree reasonable.

Retroactive child and spousal support were ordered, with spousal support reviewable upon the applicant's graduation.

The court also resolved disputes regarding a matrimonial home deposit and property valuation for equalization, awarding prejudgment interest to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations, arguing that his retirement and poor health constituted a material change in circumstances.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the retirement was voluntary to avoid support, and sought retroactive indexation of support and life insurance to secure it.

The court found that the applicant's retirement was reasonable given his age and medical conditions, constituting a material change.

Spousal support was reduced based on the parties' current incomes.

The court also granted the respondent's request for retroactive indexation back to October 2011, but dismissed her request for life insurance.

The applicant sought to vary a previous order that granted him access to his daughter on the condition that he submit to bi-weekly hair follicle testing.

The applicant argued that the cost of the testing was unexpectedly high and requested a variation under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, claiming a mistake was made regarding the cost.

The respondent opposed the request.

The court dismissed the request, finding no mistake, as the applicant had previously offered to undergo the testing without conditions and had prior knowledge of the testing process.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended due to domestic violence between the parents and the mother's failure to protect the child from the father.

The court granted summary judgment finding the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, noting the parents' history of conflict and the mother's lack of insight.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding Crown wardship, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the appropriate disposition, as the mother had made efforts to rehabilitate herself and raised concerns about the parenting capacity assessment.

The parties separated after a long marriage with four children.

The applicant sought primary residence, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent contested paternity of the youngest child and argued he should not pay support for him.

The court found the respondent stood in loco parentis to the youngest child and ordered full table child support for three children, fixing arrears at $22,912.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the respondent regarding a hidden bank account in St. Lucia, ordering him to pay an equalization payment of $9,630.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking $100,000 in security for costs against the applicant father, who resides in Spain and is seeking sole or joint custody of their child.

The father brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the father resides outside Ontario, his custody claim has merit and is not a nuisance.

The court also denied the father's request for unsupervised access due to outstanding criminal charges and flight risk concerns, instead ordering supervised access.