Mark P. Shelston

The parties shared equal physical custody of their 12-year-old daughter until the respondent mother unilaterally terminated the arrangement following an incident where she alleged the applicant father was intoxicated.

The applicant admitted to a binge drinking problem, sought treatment, and provided proof of his efforts, but the respondent continued to withhold access, arguing the child wished to control when she saw the applicant.

The court found that placing the burden of deciding access on the child was not in her best interests and caused her significant stress.

The court ordered a gradual reintegration of access for the applicant, subject to conditions including no alcohol consumption and regular hair follicle testing, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant requested that the court reconsider its previous endorsement to address a request for disclosure of information regarding the composition of a third-party corporation's customers.

The respondent and the third party objected.

The court acknowledged it had inadvertently failed to rule on the specific request in its original endorsement, but denied the disclosure request, balancing relevancy, potential damage to the corporation, and proportionality.

A custody and access dispute concerning a child with developmental delays was tried following a period during which the father retained the child after the mother’s hospitalization arising from a mental health episode.

The court considered extensive evidence from educators, child protection workers, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer regarding school attendance issues, alleged parental alienation, and the ability of each parent to meet the child’s special needs.

Numerous abuse allegations made by the father against the mother were investigated and found unsubstantiated.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the father had repeatedly failed to meet the child’s educational, medical, and developmental needs and had attempted to alienate the child from the mother.

The mother was found capable of providing a more stable and child‑focused environment.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and prospective variation of child support under a separation agreement in a shared custody arrangement.

The respondent’s income had increased substantially after the agreement, yet support had not been recalculated annually as contemplated.

The court applied the framework from Contino v. Leonelli-Contino and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, holding that the proper starting point remained the table set‑off amount based on the parties’ line 150 incomes.

The respondent failed to demonstrate that the presumptive guideline amounts were inappropriate despite income exceeding $150,000.

Retroactive support was ordered from June 2012 with significant arrears and prospective set‑off support based on updated incomes.

A child protection trial involving three Indigenous children apprehended by a children’s aid society following earlier permanent guardianship orders involving seven siblings in another province.

The court examined allegations of parental instability, lack of financial and medical supports, transient living conditions, and the significant influence of the father over the mothers.

Expert psychological evidence raised concerns about the father’s paranoia and control over the family dynamic, and whether the mothers could protect the children from associated risks.

Although the mothers demonstrated appropriate parenting during supervised access, the court concluded the ongoing risks of physical and emotional harm remained significant.

Applying the Child and Family Services Act best‑interests framework and considering Indigenous cultural placement factors, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer for failing to comply with a previous court order requiring financial disclosure, payment of costs, and spousal support.

The respondent provided the disclosure and paid the costs shortly before the motion hearing.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

However, because the respondent resides outside Ontario and was significantly late in his compliance, the court ordered him to register a $28,000 security interest against his property and pay $5,000 for interim disbursements to allow the applicant's expert to complete a business valuation.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granted in a family law proceeding that awarded custody arrangements, child support, spousal support, equalization, and other relief.

The court considered whether the motion was brought promptly after discovery of the judgment, whether the default was satisfactorily explained, and whether there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The moving party acted within four days of learning of the judgment and provided a reasonable explanation that he had not been aware of the proceedings despite substituted service.

The court found there were arguable issues relating to custody, support, and equalization that should be litigated, particularly given the children’s best interests.

The default judgment was set aside and timelines were established for the filing of responding materials and further case management.

Following a motion in which the applicant obtained interim spousal support, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought $10,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably in denying entitlement to spousal support.

The court held the respondent’s unsuccessful legal argument did not amount to bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

Applying the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and considering proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

After the parties settled all substantive family law issues by Minutes of Settlement, the court was required to determine entitlement to and quantum of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that where litigation resolves by settlement, the “divided success” approach is generally appropriate rather than a strict winner‑loser analysis.

Reviewing the pleadings, offers to settle, and final settlement terms, the court found divided success on most issues but concluded the applicant was more successful regarding the central property dispute involving the matrimonial home.

The court also found the respondent’s delays in disclosure and negotiations contributed to prolonging the litigation.

Partial costs of $17,500 were awarded to the applicant.

On urgent interim motions concerning custody of a young child following the parties’ recent separation, the applicant sought sole interim custody and supervised access for the respondent based on allegations of abuse.

The respondent denied the allegations and sought an equal parenting arrangement and permission for travel with the child.

The court emphasized the principle that interim custody motions generally preserve the pre‑separation status quo absent compelling evidence justifying change.

Given conflicting affidavit evidence and the parties’ prior shared caregiving arrangement, the court declined to grant sole custody and instead ordered joint custody with an alternating parenting schedule.

The court also permitted travel with the child and directed that the child attend the previously agreed French pre‑school program.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought a temporary care and custody order pending disposition of the application, with parental access at the agency’s discretion.

The court considered allegations of parental drug use, domestic violence, and chronic school absenteeism.

While acknowledging reasonable grounds to believe there was some risk of harm due to past illegal drug use, the court found portions of the agency’s evidence—particularly anonymous allegations and claimed falsification of drug screens—lacked credibility or reliability.

The parents had recently provided negative drug tests, engaged in addiction treatment, and cooperated with the agency.

Applying the principle that intervention must be the least disruptive placement consistent with child protection, the court returned the child to the parents subject to a supervision order and strict conditions.

Requête provisoire en droit de la famille portant sur des questions résiduelles après règlement partiel, notamment le droit du premier refus, les passeports des enfants, les voyages à l’étranger, le transport des enfants, l’accès à la résidence familiale pour récupérer des biens et la pension alimentaire pour enfants.

Le tribunal a ordonné à la mère de signer les documents nécessaires à l’obtention des passeports et de remettre les certificats de naissance, tout en lui laissant provisoirement la garde des passeports.

Le père a été autorisé à voyager avec les enfants en République Dominicaine, mais la question des voyages aux États-Unis a été laissée au juge du fond.

La demande relative au transport par les grands-parents paternels et la conjointe du père a été rejetée, tout comme la demande d’accès supplémentaire à la résidence familiale.

Le tribunal a aussi ordonné, sans préjudice, le paiement de 8 483 $ à titre de pension alimentaire impayée depuis février 2014 et de 569 $ par mois à compter du 1er juin 2015.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed disclosure, management of RESP funds, responsibility for matrimonial home expenses, exclusive possession of the home pending sale, and variation of child and spousal support.

The court ordered several disclosure steps, restricted withdrawals from the children's RESP without consent or court order, and directed procedures for relisting and selling the matrimonial home.

The applicant was permitted to remain in exclusive possession pending sale but was required to assume ongoing home expenses subject to limited cost sharing for major repairs.

The court also found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the applicant due to underemployment when considering variation of support.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and to amend her application to include a claim under the Divorce Act.

The parties had divorced in 1987 but resumed cohabitation in 1990 for 23 years.

The respondent argued the claim was statute-barred and the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the applicant met the definition of a spouse under the Family Law Act due to the lengthy post-divorce cohabitation and could also claim as a former spouse under the Divorce Act.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings and ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,500 per month.