Jack E. Pantalone

The decision addresses a motion for the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage property in the context of ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant mother sought the sale, while the respondent father opposed until equalization of net family property was resolved.

The court also considered reimbursement for post-separation and education expenses, and the need for business valuations.

The court ordered the mother to complete business valuations, granted interim reimbursement to the father for certain expenses, and ordered the immediate sale of the cottage, setting out a process for appraisal and sale.

The court considered whether to bifurcate the issue of the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement from the remaining family law claims following the parties’ separation.

The Applicant sought to have the Agreement declared void and advanced claims for spousal support, equalization, unjust enrichment, and a trust in the matrimonial home.

The Respondent moved to have the validity of the Agreement determined first.

The court reviewed the legal framework for bifurcation, including the relevant rules and case law, and concluded that the validity of the Agreement was a discrete, threshold issue.

The court ordered that the issue of validity be tried first, finding this approach would be just, expeditious, and cost-effective, and would not prejudice either party.

The respondent, a Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Canadian Navy, sought a temporary order to relocate with the three children of the marriage to North York, Ontario, due to a mandatory career development posting.

She also sought temporary sole decision-making authority and permission for the children to obtain passports and travel internationally without the applicant's approval.

The applicant opposed the relocation and the request for sole decision-making.

The court granted the temporary relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, particularly given the mother's primary caregiving role and the career implications of refusing the posting.

However, the court denied the request for sole decision-making authority and passport/travel permissions, deeming these issues for trial.

The court also provided guidance for the parties to agree on a revised parenting schedule.

This decision resolves outstanding financial issues and costs following a partial settlement during a family law trial.

The court imputed income to the applicant for support purposes, determined proportionate shares for section 7 extraordinary expenses, and addressed claims related to the matrimonial home.

The respondent's claim for matrimonial home expenses was dismissed due to a prior separation agreement.

The court also made a costs order, finding mixed success on financial issues and ordering partial recovery costs, with a net amount payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The father (D.L.) brought a motion to change decision-making authority and sought an order for the children to participate in the Family Bridges program, alleging parental alienation by the mother (J.L.).

The mother opposed, seeking sole decision-making authority and arguing the children were estranged due to the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no evidence of parental alienation and concluding that the children's reasons for rejecting the father were legitimate.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority.

The applicant, Mr. McDonald, brought a motion seeking an updated parenting assessment or, alternatively, a Voice of the Child Report.

The respondent, Ms. McMullen, sought to dismiss the motion.

The court dismissed Mr. McDonald's motion, finding that neither an assessment nor a Voice of the Child Report was necessary for the underlying Motion to Change, which primarily concerned the parents' inability to co-parent rather than clinical issues or parenting capacity.

The court also noted the applicant's outstanding unpaid costs awards from previous arbitrations.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to modify a parenting agreement regarding supervised access to his three children, which the respondent mother had unilaterally restricted to virtual contact due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the matter urgent, emphasizing the need to uphold existing court orders and provide stability for children during uncertain times.

The court varied the access order, allowing for in-person supervised access at the paternal grandparents' home starting April 11, 2020, provided the father moved there and adhered to COVID-19 protocols.

Until then, access was to be virtual.

This endorsement addresses costs following a settled family law case.

The Applicant sought termination of child support and rescission of arrears, while the Respondent sought retroactive support.

Minutes of Settlement established the Applicant as the successful party, as his motion to change was granted and the Respondent's dismissed.

The court found the Respondent's claim of success to be without merit, noting her "complete capitulation." The Respondent's arguments regarding the Applicant's blameworthy conduct, "bullying tactics" in an offer to settle, refusal to settle on a no-costs basis, and alleged failure of financial disclosure were rejected.

The court found the Applicant's disclosure extensive and persuasive.

Considering the factors under Family Law Rules r.24, including the Applicant's complete success after protracted litigation, the court awarded partial indemnity costs at 70% of the Applicant's claimed fees.

The Applicant's costs were fixed at $16,700, with repayment terms adjusted based on the Respondent's financial circumstances.

The applicant sought to vary a prior order by terminating child support, adjusting child and spousal support retroactively, and increasing ongoing spousal support.

The respondent sought to impute income to the applicant and opposed increased spousal support.

The court found no material change of circumstances to justify a variation beyond the agreed-upon annual review.

It denied the imputation of income to the applicant, adjusted child and spousal support retroactively for 2015, and set ongoing spousal support at $702 per month.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for health care premium payments and maintained the existing life insurance security for spousal support.

The applicant mother brought an emergency motion to immediately implement a clinical assessor's recommendation to change the primary residence of the child.

The motion was dismissed, and the respondent father sought costs.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct to be reprehensible, noting she escalated attacks against the respondent and filed unreliable, inflammatory affidavits.

Applying the costs consequences of Rule 18 due to the respondent's reasonable offers to settle, the court awarded the respondent costs approaching full recovery, fixed at $20,000.

The applicant sought immediate implementation of custody and access assessment recommendations, including a change to primary residence with the mother and alternate weekend access for the father.

The respondent opposed, arguing the recommendations were contentious and the existing shared parenting arrangement, in place for a year, should be maintained until trial.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the proposed changes were significant, the applicant's affidavits were problematic, and the assessor's report was contentious and required cross-examination at trial.

The court emphasized that interim implementation of assessment reports should be discouraged, especially when there are serious credibility issues and a hotly contested factual record.

The applicant sought to expedite a motion to change a temporary parenting order, citing urgency based on a custody access assessment report.

The respondent opposed the expedited hearing.

The court denied the request, finding that the expressed urgency in the report did not warrant priority over other cases, the respondent required time for preparation and questioning, and the existing parenting schedule was not so intolerable as to demand acceleration.

The motion was adjourned to a regularly scheduled date.

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.