Michael J. Stangarone

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children to the Dominican Republic under the Hague Convention after the respondent father retained them in Ontario following a summer visit.

The father opposed the return, citing exceptions under Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm) and Article 13(2) (child's objection).

The court found that the children had suffered severe physical and psychological abuse while in the mother's care, establishing a grave risk of harm if returned.

The 14-year-old child strongly objected to returning, and separating the 8-year-old from his sister would create an intolerable situation.

The court also admitted fresh evidence showing the mother attempted to abduct the younger child during the proceedings.

The application was dismissed, and Ontario assumed jurisdiction over parenting.

The parties separated after a short, traditional marriage.

The father assumed primary care of their young child and engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including restricting the mother's parenting time, making unfounded allegations about her mental health, and psychologically abusing the child by involving him in the litigation.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting time, spousal support, and equalization.

The court found the father to be an 'unfriendly parent' who engaged in family violence and could not be trusted with decision-making.

The court awarded the mother residual decision-making responsibility and ordered a transition to a shared parenting schedule, ultimately culminating in a 2-2-5 schedule.

The court also imputed income to the father, ordering him to pay retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, as well as an equalization payment of $124,542.43.

The applicant sought costs of $302,215.33 following successful interim and final preservation motions in a complex family law dispute involving a multi-million-dollar real estate empire.

The court found the respondents' conduct, particularly their failure to comply with disclosure orders and late delivery of materials, to be unreasonable and warranting sanction.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments of divided success and their reliance on offers to settle.

The court declined to pierce the corporate veil to make the individual respondent personally liable for the corporate respondents' costs.

The applicant was awarded total costs of $200,000 on a substantial recovery basis.

The mother appealed an order returning her three-year-old child to Pakistan and recognizing a foreign divorce.

The motion judge had summarily determined, based solely on conflicting affidavit evidence, that the child was habitually resident in Pakistan and faced no serious risk of harm if returned.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the mother was denied procedural fairness because the conflicting evidence regarding parental intention and domestic violence required a more robust evidentiary hearing.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a proper evidentiary hearing.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of his two-year-old child from Ontario to Australia.

The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing the child's habitual residence was in Ontario and raising exceptions under Articles 13(a) and 13(b).

The court found that the child's habitual residence had become Ontario prior to the alleged wrongful retention, largely due to the parties' relocation plans and the father's abusive conduct and withdrawal of financial support.

Alternatively, the court found the father had acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate to London, England with the parties' two-year-old child to accept a lucrative job offer and be closer to her family support network.

The father brought a cross-motion for a graduated parenting plan in Ontario.

The court granted the mother's motion to relocate, finding that she was the primary caregiver and that the father failed to meet the burden of proving the relocation was not in the child's best interests.

The court also addressed several evidentiary objections, striking surreptitious recordings and certain reply evidence, while allowing the evidence of a treating doctor as a participant expert.

The father's cross-motion was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs of $23,640.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Florida.

The respondent father had retained the child in Ontario following a parenting visit and claimed the child objected to returning.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Florida and wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The court declined to apply the Article 13 objection exception, finding that the child's sudden refusal to return was the result of parental alienation and undue influence by the father.

The motion for the child's return was granted.

The applicant father sought the return of his three-year-old child to Dubai after the respondent mother removed the child to Ontario without his consent.

The mother argued that Ontario should assume jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging a history of family violence and claiming the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and determined that the child's habitual residence was Dubai.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding no risk of serious harm, and ordered the immediate return of the child to Dubai.

The parties disputed the costs of motions regarding their children's school enrollment, in which the applicant was successful.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the children in a different school and refusing to adhere to their prior educational plan.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs because the applicant refused to participate in mediation/arbitration.

The court found neither party's conduct warranted a departure from partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was awarded $9,033.00 in costs, payable upon the resolution of the remaining issues or the sale of the family residence.

Following a successful motion by the applicant to have the parties' children attend school in-person in Etobicoke, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $22,404 on a full recovery basis from the date of his offer to settle.

The respondent argued costs should be reserved or limited to $9,000.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs and had met the terms of his offer to settle.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, payable in installments.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children, both of whom have special needs, attend in-person schooling at their current schools in Etobicoke.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to enroll the children in schools in Meaford where she had temporarily relocated, or alternatively, that they continue virtual learning.

The court found that the mother's proposed change of schools amounted to a relocation under the Divorce Act, which she had not properly initiated.

The court held that the mother failed to demonstrate that the proposed new schools would better meet the children's special needs than their current schools, and ordered that the children attend their Etobicoke schools in person.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim in-person parenting time with his two-year-old daughter pending a trial on jurisdiction and wrongful removal.

The father sought to exercise parenting time in Turkey, where he was residing, while the respondent mother opposed any travel outside Canada due to fears the father would abduct the child to Dubai.

The court granted the father's request for a four-week parenting time period in Turkey, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain a relationship with her father.

To mitigate the risk of abduction, the court imposed stringent safeguards, including requiring the father to post $200,000 in security, surrender his passports, and consent to a UAE court order granting the mother sole custody.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting joint custody but allowing the respondent mother to relocate with their two children to Washington State and giving her final decision-making authority.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by relying on the respondent's stated intention to move with or without the children, failing to maximize contact, and rejecting the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation against relocation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, avoided the 'double bind' trap, and made an order in the children's best interests.

The access schedule was slightly amended for 2021 due to COVID-19 travel restrictions.

The respondent wife brought a motion to dismiss the applicant husband's family law application, arguing that China was the more appropriate forum to determine their property and spousal support disputes.

The parties had married in China, obtained a joint divorce certificate there, and owned significant assets in China, though they also owned property and resided part-time in Ontario.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter due to a real and substantial connection, including the husband's claim for a constructive trust over an Ontario property.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the wife failed to establish that China was a clearly more appropriate forum, particularly given the risk that the husband might be time-barred from pursuing property claims under Chinese law.

Following a successful Hague Convention application ordering the return of two children to Nevada, the applicant father sought costs for the Ontario proceedings and related expenses.

The court found that the respondent mother acted in bad faith by concealing the children's whereabouts and deceiving the court about their passports.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $6,240 for the bad faith conduct and an additional $30,000 for the balance of the proceedings, deferring payment of the latter amount to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and pursue business plans.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two infant children from Ontario to Nevada.

The respondent mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and arguing that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b).

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Nevada and wrongfully removed by the mother.

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish the Article 13(b) exception, noting the availability of legal and protective resources in Nevada.

The application was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nevada.

The Applicant sought costs following partial success on a motion to stay the Respondent's motion to change.

The Applicant claimed costs on a full recovery basis, arguing the Respondent acted in bad faith and that she beat her offer to settle.

The court rejected the bad faith argument and found the offer to settle was not as favourable as the order obtained.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, reduced to reflect her divided success, fixing the amount at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an interim access order that required her to transport the parties' 19-month-old child from Windsor to Toronto for weekend access with the applicant father.

The mother argued that the child's age, winter driving conditions, and the child's familiarity with the father's home constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would justify varying the interim order, and noted that the mother had unilaterally removed the child from Toronto to Windsor prior to the initial order.

Following a ruling granting the respondent wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and temporary custody of the children, the court determined costs.

The wife had served an offer to settle, while the applicant husband had not.

The court emphasized the importance of offers to settle in family law proceedings, even for litigants of modest means.

The wife was awarded $12,500 in costs, to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home or credited against any equalization payment.

The parties, who continued to reside in the matrimonial home post-separation, brought competing motions regarding the temporary custody of their children and exclusive possession of the home.

The mother sought exclusive possession due to the toxic home environment adversely affecting the children, while the father sought the pre-trial sale of the home and alleged parental alienation.

The court granted the mother temporary exclusive possession, finding that the high-conflict environment was intolerable and detrimental to the children's best interests.

The father's motion for the pre-trial sale of the home was dismissed to prevent further emotional disruption to the children.

Both parties' requests for psychiatric assessments of the other were also dismissed.