Michael Stangarone

The applicant mother sought to recognize and enforce an Italian court order granting her sole decision-making authority over her child, and also sought a declaration of non-parentage regarding the respondent father.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court recognized the Italian decision-making order under s. 41(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

However, the court dismissed the request for a declaration of non-parentage, finding it irreconcilable with the existing Italian order that required the respondent to pay child support, which the mother had previously sought and obtained.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' two children from Lebanon to Ontario.

The respondent mother had travelled to Lebanon with the children for a planned vacation but subsequently refused to return, commencing annulment and custody proceedings in a Lebanese religious court and obtaining a travel ban.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that Ontario was the children's habitual residence and assumed jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court declined to defer to the Lebanese court orders, finding that the father had not been given reasonable notice or an opportunity to be heard in those proceedings.

The mother was ordered to return the children to Ontario immediately.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to have the parties' child returned to Oman.

The court previously directed a trial of the jurisdictional issue and requested submissions on whether the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) should be appointed.

The applicant mother requested the OCL's appointment, which the father opposed due to urgency and the impending trial date.

The court found that the father had not proceeded with urgency and that the complexity of the materials warranted a trial rather than a motion.

The court ordered the appointment of the OCL to ensure the child's best interests were advanced and adjourned the scheduled trial pending the OCL's decision.

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.

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 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 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 respondent mother brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant father, a non-resident of Ontario with no assets in the jurisdiction, prior to a trial determining jurisdiction and the return of their child to Dubai.

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed to justify the order, including the significant financial imbalance between the parties, the father's highly mobile lifestyle and liquid assets, and his conduct in over-litigating the matter.

The court ordered the father to post $150,000 as security for costs to ensure the mother could fully participate in the upcoming trial.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary equal parenting schedule for the parties' two children after the respondent mother left the matrimonial home and severely restricted his access.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking primary residence, supervised access for the father, and a section 30 assessment, alleging the father was a safety risk.

The court relied on a Children's Aid Society investigation that found no protection concerns and concluded it was in the children's best interests to have equal access to both parents.

The court granted the father's request for a 2-2-3 parenting schedule and dismissed the mother's request for a section 30 assessment.

Following a five-day family trial where the applicant was entirely successful, she sought costs of approximately $350,000 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct, including hiding income, destroying evidence, and fraudulently conveying assets to his mother to defeat the applicant's equalization claim.

Consequently, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

After adjusting for proportionality and disallowing fees for a second counsel, the court awarded the applicant $250,000 in costs.

The court determined the costs of an appeal, a motion to set an appeal date, and a motion for fresh evidence in a family law dispute.

The appellant was awarded costs for the scheduling motion and the appeal, discounted for divided success, as he succeeded in setting aside the parenting award but not the financial issues.

The respondent was awarded costs for her substantially successful motion to admit fresh evidence.

The costs were netted against each other, resulting in the respondent owing the appellant $16,691.57.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the appointment of a Therapeutic Reunification Therapist for his 13-year-old daughter, whom he had not seen for four months.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that therapy should wait until an ongoing section 30 assessment was completed.

The court granted the motion, finding that immediate intervention was necessary to prevent long-lasting damage to the father-daughter relationship and that the therapist's involvement would assist the assessor.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' one-year-old son from Ontario to California.

The respondent mother argued that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that returning him would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to alleged abuse.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was California, as it was the only place where both parents lived together with the child, and the father had not consented to a change in residence.

The court also dismissed the mother's Article 13(b) defence, finding insufficient evidence that a return would create an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered returned to California, where custody and access issues would be determined.

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.

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.

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 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.