Michael Julian Stangarone

The respondent father brought a motion for an interim variation of an arbitral child support award, arguing that his child support obligations should be reduced to 'summer support' because two of the adult children were attending post-secondary school away from home.

The court treated the motion as one for an interim variation of a final support order, requiring the father to show a strong prima facie case, a clear case of hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to provide evidence that the mother's household expenses were significantly reduced or that the table amount produced a windfall, and therefore failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the standard Guidelines approach was inappropriate.

The parties were engaged in a complex international custody dispute over their child, with the father seeking the child's return to Oman and the mother seeking to remain in Ontario.

The parties filed over 4,000 pages of materials, including conflicting expert reports on Omani law and disputed allegations of domestic violence.

The court declined to determine the jurisdictional issues on a paper record, finding that the significant credibility issues and factual disputes required viva voce evidence.

The court directed a trial of an issue to determine jurisdiction and related matters.

This is an appeal from an order granting primary residence of the parties' child to the respondent mother.

The appellant father argued the trial judge erred by not considering the impact of relocation on parenting time, failing to apply mandatory Divorce Act provisions regarding relocation, and presumptively basing the decision on the mother being the primary caregiver.

The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error, affirming that the trial judge properly considered the child's best interests, including the impact of relocation, and that the appellant was not prejudiced by any notice defect.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 mother sought an interim order to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Ottawa due to a mandatory military posting.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing British Columbia was the children's habitual residence.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there pursuant to the parties' separation agreement.

The court granted the interim relocation, finding compelling circumstances, and ordered a flexible parenting schedule for the father.

The court declined to order child support, finding the father would suffer undue hardship due to the high costs of travel to exercise parenting time and his existing support obligations for two other children.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order to relocate with the parties' four-year-old child to Burnaby, British Columbia, and for primary care.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement in London, Ontario.

The parties, both physicians, separated following an incident resulting in criminal charges against the father.

The mother sought to relocate for a lucrative employment opportunity in her medical specialty.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Divorce Act and the test for interim mobility, finding that the mother had a compelling financial and career reason to move, and that she had been the primary caregiver.

The court granted the interim relocation and allocated primary care and decision-making responsibility to the mother, with specified parenting time for the father.

Following a successful application under the Hague Convention for the return of a wrongfully removed child, the applicant sought full recovery costs and expenses.

The respondent had failed to comply with the court's return order and disappeared with the child in France.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be in bad faith and unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded full recovery costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and necessary expenses under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, totaling $40,413.

The applicant father sought full recovery costs of over $733,000 following a successful trial where Ontario declined jurisdiction over the parties' child, ordering her return to Dubai.

The respondent mother argued for each party to bear their own costs, citing the binary nature of the jurisdiction issue and her financial limitations.

The court found the mother's post-July 2021 conduct, including evading court orders and hiding the child, constituted bad faith, justifying full recovery costs for enforcement efforts.

While acknowledging the mother's financial means, the court emphasized that such means do not shield a party from cost consequences for unreasonable litigation conduct.

Considering the father's advantageous settlement offers and the complexity of the case, the court awarded the father $250,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The mother appealed a trial judge's order regarding child support, challenging the retroactive period, termination age, imposed conditions, income calculation for the father, and inclusion of her new spouse's income for s. 7 expenses.

The appeal court upheld the retroactive support period and the termination age of 25, and the father's income calculation.

However, it found that several conditions imposed on the father's ongoing child support obligation were beyond the trial judge's jurisdiction and removed them.

The court also upheld the inclusion of the mother's new spouse's income for s. 7 expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the child to France, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The mother argued the child was habitually resident in Canada and that returning the child to France posed a grave risk of harm.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France immediately prior to the removal and that the mother's evidence did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk exception under Article 13(b).

The court ordered the child's forthwith return to France.

The appellant sought to vary a 2015 consent order (Mossip Order) regarding child and spousal support after the respondent's income significantly increased post-separation.

The motion judge dismissed the variation request.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge misapprehended evidence regarding child support overpayments, leading to arrears.

The Court also found the motion judge erred in law by concluding spousal support entitlement was solely contractual and by failing to consider the appellant's material change in circumstances.

The appeal was allowed in part: child support arrears were fixed, and spousal support was varied and made time-limited, while the refusal to order ongoing Table amount child support for adult children was upheld.

The applicant sought a declaration that an Egyptian divorce order not be recognized or enforced in Ontario and interim spousal support.

The respondent sought a declaration that the Egyptian divorce was valid and enforceable in Ontario and dismissal of the spousal support claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests, finding that the Egyptian divorce was valid and enforceable.

The court determined that the applicant's consent to the divorce was not obtained under duress, there was no denial of natural justice, and public policy favored upholding the divorce to avoid a bigamy conundrum.

Furthermore, the parties had a real and substantial connection to Egypt, and Ontario had already recognized the divorce for the purpose of the respondent's remarriage.

Consequently, the applicant had no standing to claim spousal support in Ontario.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 21, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting the respondent father sole custody/decision-making responsibility for their child and temporarily suspending the mother's contact, following a finding of parental alienation.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the best interests test, failed to consider less drastic options, did not adequately weigh the child's views, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these submissions, affirming the trial judge's findings of parental alienation and the drastic change in custody as being in the child's best interests, supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay appeal costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of R.F. Macleod J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,229.03.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under section 12 of the Family Law Act to prevent the respondent from dissipating assets, specifically the proceeds from the sale of several real properties owned by his corporations.

The respondent argued the applicant must meet the strict test for a Mareva injunction.

The court rejected the application of the Mareva test, noting the respondent had previously admitted the applicant owned half the land.

The court granted a narrow preservation order restricting the depletion of the net proceeds of the sale of the specific properties.

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 appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to dismiss the respondent's application for matrimonial relief on jurisdictional grounds, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction or China was the more appropriate forum.

The motion judge found Ontario had jurisdiction but that China was not the clearly more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of jurisdiction but found the motion judge erred in the forum non conveniens analysis by failing to adequately consider pre-existing marital agreements executed in China and overemphasizing the Ontario property.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's application was stayed, directing the matter to China.