Michael Julian Stangarone

The appellant mother appealed an order returning her five-year-old child to Morocco under the Hague Convention.

The application judge found Morocco to be the child's habitual residence and rejected the mother's argument that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm, despite the respondent father's criminal conviction in Morocco for assaulting the child.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred by not considering the father's assault conviction prospectively and cumulatively with the likely separation of the child from her primary caregiver, the mother, who faced significant legal barriers to returning to Morocco.

The Court held that returning the child to the father's sole care without adequate protective measures constituted a grave risk of harm.

On a family law appeal concerning a separation agreement, divorce order, and entitlement to the proceeds of sale of a matrimonial home, the court held that adult children identified as intended recipients of a parent's gifted share had a clear interest in the proceeding and should have received notice and full participation rights.

The appellate court admitted fresh evidence from the parties and the adult children, including evidence potentially bearing on whether the gifting provisions were understood and intended.

Because the application proceeded without participation by persons whose interests were directly affected, the trial judge's orders, including the costs order, could not stand.

The appeal was allowed, the orders were set aside, and a new trial was directed before a different judge.

The mother wrongfully retained the parties' 9-year-old child in Ontario following a holiday visit, breaching a California final consent order.

The father successfully applied under the Hague Convention for the child's immediate return to California.

The mother appealed the return order and brought an urgent motion to stay the order pending appeal, citing the child's strong objections to returning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test and finding that a stay was not in the child's best interests, as the appeal had a low chance of success and continuing the unlawful separation perpetuated harm to the father-child relationship.

In a non-Hague international child removal dispute, the court held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine parenting on the merits because the children were habitually resident in Dubai when they were removed to Ontario.

The court also found that the statutory conditions in s. 22(1)(b) were not all satisfied, and that the evidence did not establish serious harm under s. 23 or justify parens patriae intervention under s. 69.

Although the removal to Ontario without notice or consent was found to be wrongful, the court emphasized that self-help relocation cannot create a new habitual residence or jurisdictional foothold.

Under s. 40, the court ordered an interim cross-border parenting regime and directed the parties to advance parenting claims in the courts of England and Wales.

The applicant mother brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Germany.

The respondent father had travelled with the children to Ontario under the guise of a vacation and subsequently claimed refugee status, alleging the children were at risk of abuse from the mother.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Germany and were wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The court rejected the father's argument that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b) of the Convention, noting that the German authorities had previously investigated and dismissed his allegations.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Germany and awarded the mother $83,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis due to the father's bad faith conduct.

The mother wrongfully retained the parties' two young children in Ontario after a visit from their habitual residence in Texas.

The father sought their return under the Hague Convention.

The mother opposed the return, alleging a history of severe family violence, coercive control, and sexual abuse by the father.

The court found that the father's admitted history of physical and psychological abuse against the mother constituted a grave risk of harm to the children under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

The court dismissed the father's application for return, assumed jurisdiction over parenting issues, and ordered the children to remain in Ontario.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to prevent the applicant father from relocating the parties' children to Markham and changing their school from Toronto to Markham pending a final determination of her motion to change.

The court found that the proposed move constituted a relocation under the Divorce Act, as the increased commuting distance would significantly impact the children's relationship with the mother.

Applying the best interests factors, the court ordered that the children continue attending their Toronto school to maintain stability and support the existing equal shared parenting schedule, but declined to prohibit the father from moving the children's residence to Markham during his parenting time.

The mother's request for a Voice of the Child Report was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a successful appeal by the mother in a family law matter involving the Hague Convention and refugee status.

The mother's appeal overturned the application judge's decision to return the child to the country of origin after Canada granted the child refugee status.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the mother as the wholly successful party, fixing costs at $50,000 for the application and $30,000 for the appeal, totalling $80,000, while reversing the application judge's award of $75,000 to the father.

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal from a May 21, 2024 trial judgment in family law proceedings.

The trial judge had found the appellant engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, psychological abuse of the child, failure to honour support obligations, and efforts to alienate the child from the respondent.

The appellant failed to comply with a stay order requiring payment of support arrears within 30 days and continued to breach court orders regarding parenting time and support payments.

The Court of Appeal found this to be one of the clearest cases justifying quashing an appeal, citing the appellant's deliberate and unwavering breach of crystal-clear orders, substantial arrears, and pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation.

The respondent mother sought to stay the Court of Appeal's order requiring the return of a five-year-old child to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, pending her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The father had successfully appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application for the child's return, on the basis that the father had consented to or acquiesced in the child's retention in Canada.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in conflating consent to relocation with consent to retention.

The motion judge dismissed the mother's stay motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the child's return to the jurisdiction of habitual residence.

A wrongfully retained child was ordered returned to her country of origin after Canada granted her refugee status.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in failing to apply the rebuttable presumption against the return of a refugee child and in dismissing the child's objection to return.

The court held that when a child has been recognized as a Convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board, a rebuttable presumption arises that there is a risk of persecution on return.

The application judge improperly questioned the refugee determination process and reweighed evidence without oral testimony or cross-examination.

Additionally, the child's clear and repeated objection to return, based on fear of violence by the father, was not given proper weight.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination of parenting and decision-making authority under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a declaratory order that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to make parenting orders regarding two children.

The father argued that the children would suffer serious harm if returned to Iran due to the Israel-Iran conflict and other factors.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that the children's habitual residence is Iran and that Iran has jurisdiction over parenting matters.

The court found that the children would not suffer serious harm if returned to Iran on a balance of probabilities and declined Ontario's jurisdiction, dismissing the father's motion.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law trial regarding the primary residence of a four-year-old child, S.P., following the separation of her parents, Sanjay Patel and Beejal Yogesh Sesha Patel.

The court considered issues of relocation, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that it was in S.P.'s best interests to continue residing with her mother in London, England, and for the existing parenting schedule to remain in place.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive spousal support, and set out directions for the continuation of the trial on outstanding financial issues.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a family law appeal in which the appellant, Eleanor Dawn Hendriks, was substantially successful.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded her costs for both the appeal and the underlying motion, reversing the motion judge’s previous order that required her to pay costs to the respondent.

The court found that the appellant was the more successful party and that the respondent did not meet the burden to show his settlement offers were more favourable.

The court also found that the appellant, as a self-represented litigant, was not unreasonable in her conduct.

The court granted an application under the Hague Convention for the return of a child wrongfully removed from Michigan to Ontario by her mother.

The judge found that Michigan was the child’s habitual residence immediately prior to removal, rejecting the argument that the child’s ties to her primary caregiver in Ontario were determinative.

The court also found that the mother had not established a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation if the child were returned, and ordered the child’s return to Michigan with undertakings to protect the mother and child’s interests pending further proceedings in Michigan.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

This costs award follows the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Family Law Act and Divorce Act.

The court considered the parties' submissions on costs, the novelty and importance of the issues, and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court declined to order full indemnity costs as requested by the respondent, instead awarding $25,000, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, an interim disbursement or advance on equalization, preservation and non-depletion orders, and costs.

The court found that only the interim disbursement/advance issue was properly before the court, but issued an order for the sale of the matrimonial home by agreement.

The applicant did not meet the burden for an interim disbursement or advance.

The respondent was awarded partial costs.