Michael Julian Stangarone

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.

The parties, separated parents of two children, brought cross-motions for directions regarding which schools their children should attend for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The applicant sought to maintain the parties' pre-separation education plan, which involved the older child attending a 50/50 French Immersion program at a school in Caledon and the younger child attending a full French school in Orangeville for kindergarten.

The respondent, who had unilaterally enrolled the children in a different school in Orangeville after purchasing a home there, sought to have both children attend the new school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as stability, the parents' ability to support the children's education, and the children's community connections.

The court found that maintaining the pre-separation education plan was in the children's best interests and ordered the children to attend the schools proposed by the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' three-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging the father had substance abuse issues, posed a danger to the child, and that the child was immunocompromised and at risk due to COVID-19.

The court found the mother's evidence of substance abuse to be historical and vague, and noted the father had passed numerous drug and alcohol tests.

The court concluded the mother's restrictions were excessive and not in the child's best interests, granting the father's motion for unsupervised parenting time, including overnights, subject to continued breathalyzer testing at pick-up and drop-off.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.