Michael Julian Stangarone

Following a motion concerning the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession, the court addressed costs under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent had been entirely successful on the motion, obtaining exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and defeating the applicant’s request for immediate sale.

The court considered the presumption of costs under Rule 24(1), the effect of offers to settle under Rule 18(14), and the factors in Rule 24(11).

Although the respondent sought substantial costs, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive time spent by counsel and uncertainty regarding disbursements.

The applicant was ordered to pay reduced costs to the respondent.

This decision addressed costs following a prior endorsement determining that the respondent mother had not complied with the terms of a consent order requiring her to permanently relocate within a specified distance of the applicant father to receive relocation payments and select the child’s school.

After a two‑day hearing with oral evidence, the court found the mother had not permanently relocated and had attempted to mislead the father, resulting in the father being entirely successful on the substantive issues.

The father sought costs of approximately $39,637.77.

Applying the factors under Family Law Rule 24(11), including proportionality, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, and the hours expended, the court concluded that the claimed amount was excessive despite counsel’s thorough work.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 payable by the mother, with repayment structured through monthly set‑off against child support.

A costs endorsement in a high-conflict custody and relocation case.

The respondent father sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $24,786.07 following a comprehensive settlement reached by the parties.

The applicant mother opposed the costs claim, arguing that no costs should be awarded where parties have settled and that the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, including unlawful withholding of the child, disentitled him to costs.

The court found no compelling reasons to award costs to either party, noting that the parties had compromised to reach settlement, the respondent had behaved unreasonably throughout the proceedings, and a substantial costs award would create financial hardship for the custodial parent and jeopardize child support payments.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking remedies for the respondent mother's breach of a court order requiring participation in reunification therapy with the children.

The mother sought to terminate the therapy and requested a new custody assessment.

The court found the mother in clear breach of the consent order by unilaterally terminating the therapy.

The court declined to strike the mother's pleadings or impose a fine, but ordered the immediate resumption of therapy and required the mother to reimburse the father for half the costs of the therapy to date.

The mother's requests to remove the therapist and for a new assessment were dismissed, and the matter was expedited to trial.

The applicant father brought a motion for the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the respondent mother sought interim exclusive possession pending trial.

The applicant argued he was in a desperate financial situation due to unemployment and Parkinson's disease, while the respondent argued a sale would prejudice her claims for security for support and a vesting order at trial, and would disrupt the children's stability.

The court dismissed the motion for sale and granted the respondent interim exclusive possession, finding that an immediate sale would prejudice the respondent's trial claims and that maintaining stability in the matrimonial home was in the children's best interests.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent spouse to execute documents transferring the liquor licence of a family-owned pub to her.

The business interest had previously been ordered transferred to the applicant pursuant to an interim order under s. 12(b) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent argued he remained the corporate shareholder and proposed instead renewing the licence in the corporation’s name.

The court held that the prior order vested the business interest in the applicant and required compliance, and that the statutory framework under the Liquor Licence Act required transfer of the licence to reflect the change in control of the business.

The respondent was ordered to sign the transfer documents and pay costs.

The parties sought enforcement of a consent order incorporating Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent mother to permanently relocate within 30 km of the applicant father’s residence by January 1, 2013 in order to choose the child’s school and receive relocation payments.

The dispute concerned whether the respondent had permanently relocated in compliance with the settlement terms.

After hearing oral evidence due to credibility issues, the court found the respondent had not acted in good faith and had not established a permanent residence within the meaning of the agreement, including cancelling a condominium purchase and instead renting a temporary room while proposing further moves.

The court concluded the respondent failed to comply with the settlement and consent order.

Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to relocation payments or to choose the child’s school, and the child was to remain in the current school.

The applicant mother brought a motion to compel the respondent father and a non-party corporation to produce extensive financial documents and answer undertakings to determine the father's income for spousal support purposes.

The father brought a cross-motion to compel the mother to answer undertakings.

The court ordered extensive third-party corporate disclosure, finding that the father's complex corporate and trust structures necessitated broader production to fairly determine his income.

Both parties were also ordered to answer specific undertakings and refusals.

Following a family law motion concerning enforcement and variation of interim orders relating to payment of household utilities and a business valuation, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent had been primarily successful because the applicant's motion to vary the orders was dismissed and enforcement of the existing orders was granted.

Although the respondent requested full indemnity costs based on alleged bad faith, the court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not rising to bad faith under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Considering divided success on the issue of the sale of the matrimonial home and the parties’ conduct, the court awarded reduced costs.

Costs of $8,000 were ordered payable from the respondent’s share of the proceeds upon the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought a determination that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to address spousal support and net family property following a divorce proceeding commenced in Texas.

The respondent argued that a Texas court had already issued a final divorce order and determined issues relating to spousal support and property rights.

The court held that where a foreign court has granted a valid divorce, Ontario courts lack jurisdiction to determine corollary relief under the Divorce Act and claims under the Family Law Act.

The court found that the applicant had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Texas court by participating in the proceedings and failing to appeal the jurisdiction ruling.

The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act was held not to apply because the foreign order denied spousal support rather than ordering payment.

The appellant sought to appeal a judgment and a vesting order granted following an uncontested trial, which occurred after his statement of defence was struck for failure to comply with disclosure obligations.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that an appellant must exhaust their remedies to change, vary, or set aside a default order in the court of first instance before an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order reviewing spousal and child support under a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons deficient for failing to determine the appellant's income or justify departing from the Child Support Guidelines and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

To avoid a new trial, the Court of Appeal imputed the appellant's income at $250,000 due to his failure to make full disclosure.

The Court applied the Guidelines, ordering $4,071 monthly for child support and $4,597 monthly for spousal support, and directed proportional sharing of section 7 expenses.

The mother appealed an order under the Hague Convention requiring the return of her daughter to the United Kingdom.

The application judge found that the child's habitual residence was the U.K., as the parents had not given up their residence there when they travelled to Canada.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding habitual residence or his decision not to require oral testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody of the parties' two children, arguing the parents could not communicate, there was a history of domestic violence, and the order lacked a dispute resolution mechanism.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had an evidentiary basis to conclude the parties could effectively communicate once court orders preventing contact were lifted.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the domestic abuse allegations or the access schedule.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change a consent order for spousal support.

He argued that his son moving into his residence and his deteriorating financial position constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the child's move was reasonably foreseeable, the appellant's income had actually increased, and he was saving on child support.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellant appealed a final order awarding the respondent retrospective and prospective child and spousal support, as well as costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decisions not to impute income to the respondent, to order support retroactive to May 2005, and to award $5,000 in child support arrears.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by failing to provide reasons for awarding $2,000 monthly in spousal support for periods when the respondent was earning income.

The Court varied the spousal support to $1,700 monthly for the period the respondent earned income, upheld the $2,000 monthly award for the period she was unemployed, and reduced the costs award from $8,000 to $7,000.

The appellant wife appealed a review order that reduced her spousal support from $2,700 to $1,350 per month and imposed a termination date.

The parties had been married for 25 years.

The reviewing judge had reduced support based on the respondent husband's expected reduction in income and a finding of 'double-dipping' related to the equalization of his business.

The Divisional Court found that the reviewing judge erred in principle by imposing a time limit on support without analyzing whether the objectives of the Divorce Act were met, noting that time-limited support is only appropriate in unusual circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and the original support order was reinstated.