Michael Julian Stangarone

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.

Following the release of its decision on the main appeal, the Divisional Court realized it had inadvertently omitted addressing the appellant's supplementary notice of appeal regarding a $10,000 costs order made by the motion judge.

The respondent argued the issue should be left to the Court of Appeal or dismissed due to late service.

The Court rejected these arguments, deciding to hear the costs appeal and setting a timetable for written submissions.

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.

The party seeking costs sought an award on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion.

The court found that the opposing party had acted unreasonably by proceeding with the motion despite being warned that they were in breach of a previous costs order.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $8,398.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring her to pay $150,000 to the responding party for interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party argued there were conflicting decisions regarding the requirement of exceptional circumstances and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions as the rule involves discretionary balancing to level the playing field, and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's factual findings and exercise of discretion.

The appellant mother appealed an order declaring she wrongfully retained her two children in Ontario and requiring their return to Germany under the Hague Convention.

The children had moved to Ontario with the respondent father's consent for a temporary period.

The Divisional Court found that the application judge erred in concluding the children's habitual residence remained in Germany.

The Court held that during the 16-month consensual period, the children's habitual residence changed to Ontario.

The appeal was allowed, the return order was set aside, and the Hague application was dismissed.

Following a matrimonial trial, the court determined property and equalization issues relating to a former matrimonial home.

The respondent asserted that funds advanced by his father toward the home purchase and household expenses were loans or subject to a resulting trust, reducing his net family property.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust for gratuitous transfers from parent to adult child but found the presumption rebutted due to the absence of corroborating documentation, repayment terms, security, or evidence of enforcement.

The advances were characterized as gifts that lost excluded status when invested in the matrimonial home under the Family Law Act.

The court ordered an equalization payment to the applicant with prejudgment interest, while dismissing claims for a vesting order and occupation rent.

Following a Hague Convention application in which the court ordered the return of two children to Germany after finding the mother had wrongfully retained them in Ontario, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought over $67,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the mother argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Article 26 of the Hague Convention, the court found the father was the successful party but reduced the claimed costs due to excessive billing, duplication of work, inclusion of unrelated steps, and some unreasonable conduct by the father during the proceedings.

The court also considered the mother’s success on a motion involving the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and her financial circumstances.

A global costs award was made reflecting a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a 2005 amending agreement to a separation agreement, declaring the respondent the sole owner of a property, and ordering prospective spousal support.

The respondent cross-appealed on issues including retroactive support, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's decision to set aside the agreement due to the appellant's significant financial non-disclosure and unconscionability.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

The cross-appeal was allowed only to award pre-judgment interest on the retroactive child and spousal support order.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his two children to Germany.

The children had travelled to Canada with the respondent mother for an educational exchange with the father's consent, which expired in August 2014.

The mother refused to return the children, arguing they were habitually resident in Canada and objected to returning.

The court found the children's habitual residence remained Germany and their retention in Canada was wrongful.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13, finding the children's objections were not substantial enough to override the Convention's purpose.

The children were ordered returned to Germany.

Following a trial where the respondent successfully obtained an order under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Indiana, the respondent sought costs of $87,394.46.

The applicant opposed the quantum, citing excessive billing and her own impecuniosity.

The court found the respondent's bill of costs excessive and reduced the starting point.

While the court would have awarded $35,000 in partial indemnity costs, it further reduced the award to $12,500 to account for the applicant's precarious financial circumstances and the best interests of the child, noting that impecuniosity is a relevant factor but does not provide complete immunity from costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis for three motions, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and unreasonably by failing to provide financial disclosure and thwarting a settlement conference.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments that his behaviour was reasonable and that costs should be deferred.

Finding the respondent's conduct warranted full recovery, the court awarded the applicant $22,000 in costs, to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The moving party sought to stay a final divorce order while remaining in contempt of multiple Ontario court orders requiring her to return the parties' child from Poland to Canada.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to prohibit the moving party from proceeding until her contempt was purged.

The Court of Appeal granted the cross-motion, exercising its discretion to refuse to hear the moving party's request for a stay because doing so while she remained in contempt of closely connected child custody orders would be manifestly unjust and an abuse of process.

On an application to remove a family mediator/arbitrator, the court held that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine disputes over the child's residence and access under the amending separation agreement, which excluded only joint custody from arbitration.

However, the arbitrator's pre-arbitration statements indicated he had already concluded the mother was undermining the father-child relationship and that the residential arrangement should change.

His insistence on a rushed one-day hearing on short notice, despite counsel's unavailability, also breached the fairness requirements in the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application was allowed and the arbitrator was removed and replaced.

The respondent sought to set aside the registration of a child support order from the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida dated August 22, 2012.

The respondent argued that the registration should be set aside on grounds of lack of proper notice, lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard, lack of jurisdiction, and that the order was contrary to public policy in Ontario.

The court found that while the respondent had proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and that the Florida court had jurisdiction, the Florida order was contrary to public policy in Ontario because it imposed child support obligations significantly higher than would have been ordered under Ontario law, and because the applicant should have pursued a variation application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act rather than commencing a fresh proceeding in Florida.

The registration was set aside and the original Ontario order was varied.

The parties brought competing family law motions arising from the breakdown of a short marriage and disputing the validity of a marriage contract executed shortly before the wedding.

Issues included interim spousal support, disclosure, interim disbursements, exclusive possession of properties in Ontario and Florida, and whether the validity of the marriage contract should be determined separately from the remaining claims.

The court held that solicitor-client privilege had been waived concerning negotiations of the marriage contract and ordered production of former counsel’s files.

Interim spousal support of $6,000 per month was ordered retroactive to November 1, 2013 in accordance with the marriage contract, pending trial.

The court further ordered limited financial disclosure and directed that the issues of the contract’s validity and the valuation date be bifurcated and tried first.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking various relief after the applicant mother unilaterally cancelled their daughter's First Communion and denied access.

The mother argued that the Minutes of Settlement were not enforceable because a formal order had not been taken out.

The court rejected this argument, finding the mother's conduct shocking and indicative of a systematic attempt to marginalize the father.

The court granted the father's requests to reschedule the Communion, ordered police enforcement for access, issued a non-disparagement order, permitted the father to provide the children with cell phones, ordered the mother to reimburse the father for the cancelled event's costs, and granted make-up access.

The appellant husband appealed the trial judge's order for an unequal division of net family property and occupation rent following a 32-year marriage.

The trial judge found unconscionability based on the husband forcing the wife to sign a joint line of credit through violence and threats.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's findings on unconscionability, occupation rent, minor calculation errors, or the amendment of pleadings at trial.

The appeal of the costs award was also dismissed due to the husband's unreasonable behaviour during the litigation.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from orders relating to a divorce application that proceeded on an uncontested basis due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no adequate explanation for the eight-month delay, significant prejudice to the responding party's health, and a lack of merit in the proposed grounds of appeal.

The court also noted the moving party's history of non-compliance with court orders.

Following a family law motion in which the respondent was found to have breached a prior court order requiring cooperation with a reintegration program, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought full recovery costs alleging unreasonable conduct and bad faith, while the responding party argued no costs should be awarded and sought costs relating to an adjournment.

The court found the moving party had been successful on the most important issue, namely the finding of breach of the court order.

While rejecting the claim for full recovery costs and excluding work related to unrelated issues, the court fixed a fair and reasonable amount payable by the unsuccessful party.