Mark P. Shelston

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.