Mark P. Shelston

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.

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 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.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a trial where the parties could not agree.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was the successful party, while the respondent claimed divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, having prevailed on major issues including custody, income imputation, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court also found the respondent's conduct, including attempts to mislead the court regarding his income and assets, amounted to bad faith.

Considering the Family Law Rules, offers to settle, trial positions, and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant and respondent sought a court order to determine which French elementary school their child, Dezmond, should attend commencing September 2018.

The applicant proposed l’École élémentaire catholique Au Coeur d’Ottawa, while the respondent proposed l’École élémentaire et secondaire publique Maurice-Lapointe.

The court considered the child's best interests, including parental involvement, commute times, and the quality of education, ultimately ruling in favour of the applicant's proposed school due to significantly less travel burden on the child and the applicant.

The applicant sought divorce, spousal support (retroactive, quantum, duration, security), repayment of $36,028.69, and removal from a corporation.

The court granted the divorce, found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, and ordered retroactive and ongoing periodic support based on imputed income for the respondent.

The court dismissed the claims for security for support and removal from the corporation.

The respondent's credibility was significantly undermined throughout the proceedings.

This case involved a family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation and divorce.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings against the respondent due to evasiveness and contradictions in his testimony and financial disclosure.

The applicant was granted sole custody of the child with final decision-making authority, and the respondent's income was imputed at $150,000 for support purposes.

The court ordered child support and periodic spousal support, and an equalization payment from the respondent to the applicant.

Requests for lump sum spousal support and a restraining order against the respondent were denied.

This is a costs endorsement following a prior motion in a family law matter.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was substantially more successful on the main issue of the respondent's income imputation, which impacted child and spousal support.

The respondent argued for divided success and that each party should bear their own costs or receive a substantial discount.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party on the most significant issue and that the respondent's conduct, including non-compliance with financial disclosure and failure to pay support, was unreasonable, though it did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

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 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.

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.