Paul Buttigieg

The maternal grandparents and mother sought a stay of an Ontario Court of Justice order that granted temporary care and custody of two children to their father pending an appeal.

The children had been living with the maternal grandparents after the mother voluntarily placed them there.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the stay, finding that the appeal raised serious issues, including whether a parent has priority over a grandparent, and that it was in the children's best interests to remain in their current, familiar environment with the maternal grandparents to minimize disruption pending the appeal.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to increase spousal support and continue child support for the parties' 23-year-old daughter.

The respondent father had taken early retirement, receiving a large pension payout, and subsequently returned to work as a consultant.

The court found that the daughter was no longer a 'child of the marriage' as her online continuing education courses did not constitute a reasonable educational plan, terminating child support.

The court found the father's early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the rule against double-dipping, the court determined the unequalized portion of the father's pension to be considered for support.

The court declined to strictly apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the mother's unreasonable post-separation financial decisions, and ordered the father to pay increased spousal support of $5,000 per month.

The applicant brought a motion to vary existing child and spousal support orders following the respondent’s earlier-than-expected retirement and pension payout.

The court found a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify reconsideration of spousal support but dismissed the claim for continued child support.

The judge identified unresolved issues regarding the proper actuarial treatment of the pension payout and the appropriate calculation of spousal support, including whether the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines should apply.

The court sought further submissions from counsel and potentially the actuaries to determine the correct approach before finalizing the variation.

A procedural endorsement in a family law motion to change where the originally scheduled hearing dates conflicted with the judge’s schedule.

Following a conference call with counsel and consultation with the trial office, the court vacated the previously scheduled dates and set new hearing dates.

The motion was directed to be heard in Brampton.

The judge noted that although not formally seized of the matter, it was anticipated that he would hear the motion.

In post‑separation family litigation, the respondent husband brought a cross‑motion seeking enforcement of a settlement reached shortly before a scheduled contempt motion concerning compliance with an earlier court order arising from mediation/arbitration minutes of settlement.

The settlement addressed several financial issues but did not expressly mention a requirement in the prior order that the husband transfer an interest in foreign real property to the wife.

The court found the offer had been made under a unilateral mistake by the wife, who reasonably believed the property transfer would proceed independently of the settlement.

Given circumstances indicating the husband or his counsel should have recognized the misunderstanding, the court held equitable principles justified rescission and declined to enforce the settlement.

The cross‑motion was dismissed and the underlying contempt motion was adjourned.