Jack E. Pantalone

Following a prior endorsement denying a request for temporary relief from guideline child support based on hardship, the responding party's counsel advised the court of an error in the judge’s reference to the responding party’s 2013 income tax liability.

The corrected amount was substantially higher than previously stated.

The court considered whether the error justified revisiting the earlier refusal of hardship relief.

The judge concluded that the corrected tax liability did not alter the analysis and declined to revisit the denial of the hardship claim.

The applicant brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support following separation and the breakdown of a shared parenting arrangement for three children.

The respondent opposed retroactive support and brought a cross‑motion seeking relief from any child support obligation based on undue hardship due to disability‑related expenses, and sought leave to amend pleadings.

The court declined to order retroactive support on a temporary motion, finding factual and financial disputes better suited to negotiation or trial.

The court also rejected the respondent’s undue hardship claim, finding his income substantial and insufficient evidence to meet the high threshold under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent was ordered to pay guideline support if parenting time fell below 40%, with set‑off under s. 9 applicable if parenting time exceeded that threshold; leave to amend pleadings was granted.

The parties were unable to agree on a parenting time schedule and each submitted a proposed schedule to the court.

The court preferred the applicant’s proposed schedule and ordered that it form the basis of the parenting arrangement, subject to a modification addressing professional development days occurring before the respondent’s parenting weekends.

The order directed that such professional development days and the preceding Thursday overnight be added to the respondent’s parenting time, extending his time from Wednesday at 4 p.m. until the following Monday morning.

Both parties sought costs and submitted bills of costs.

The court found the outcome reflected mixed success and declined to award costs.

On a motion concerning temporary custody and access following separation, the father sought shared parenting of the parties’ three young children after the mother unilaterally terminated an interim two-day rotation arrangement.

The mother raised concerns about the father’s ability to provide adequate care due to a catastrophic spinal injury that left him quadriplegic and reliant on significant assistance.

The court emphasized the importance of maximizing children’s contact with both parents and noted that the matter was at an early stage, with a custody and access assessment anticipated.

A temporary arrangement was ordered granting joint custody with parenting time approximately 60% to the mother and 40% to the father, along with directions to develop a workable schedule and obtain a professional assessment.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had been the successful party on the motion.

The court found no unreasonable litigation conduct by either party and declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed in a lump sum amount payable within 30 days.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss Ontario family proceedings on the basis that he had already commenced a parallel divorce, custody, and access proceeding in Bulgaria.

The court considered jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act and held that Ontario clearly had jurisdiction because the spouses had been resident in the province and the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

Applying the forum non conveniens principles articulated in Club Resorts Ltd v. Van Breda, the court held that the moving party failed to demonstrate that Bulgaria was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The child’s residence, schooling, medical care, and most relevant evidence relating to the child’s best interests were located in Ontario, and the applicant would face significant juridical disadvantage if forced to litigate abroad.

The motion to stay or dismiss the Ontario proceedings was therefore refused.

The mother appealed a trial judgment granting joint custody of the children to the father and determining child support issues.

She argued the trial judge erred in awarding joint custody, failing to impute higher income to the father, and calculating section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's best interests analysis or financial determinations.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed, as the trial judge had remained seized of the custody issue for one year and was better positioned to address new complaints.