Paul C. Buttigieg

The moving party father brought a motion for access to his two-year-old daughter.

The responding party mother argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the motion was brought after a 30-day deadline set in a previous order.

The court extended the time to hear the motion under Rule 3(5) of the Family Law Rules, noting the father had not seen the child in several months.

The mother sought supervised access, but the court found no basis for her concerns or that the father was a flight risk.

The court ordered temporary unsupervised access twice a week and prohibited the removal of the child from Ontario.

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.

This was a family law costs endorsement following an urgent motion concerning restoration of possession of a home and primary care of a child.

The applicant had been substantially successful on the underlying motion, and the court held that the respondent had acted unreasonably and in bad faith by advancing unsupported allegations of criminal misconduct and mental unfitness and by unreasonably opposing the motion.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success, complexity, party conduct, counsel rates, time spent, comparable awards, and proportionality.

The court awarded full recovery costs of $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, with pre-judgment interest at 3% from April 17, 2014.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded access to a young child, including overnight and holiday access, following a period of supervised visits under a prior order.

The respondent mother proposed a slower phase‑in schedule and limited holiday access.

The court found evidence of a positive bond between the father and the child and determined that both parties’ proposals were excessive.

The court ordered unsupervised daytime access three times per week as an incremental step, declined immediate overnight access, and set a holiday visit later in December rather than Christmas.

The court also directed that exchanges occur at the respondent’s residence and required the father to provide contact information during visits.

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.

The applicant mother was arrested and removed from her home following an altercation with the respondent father, who claimed she assaulted him.

The mother brought an urgent motion to dispense with a case conference, seeking exclusive possession of her solely-owned home and temporary sole custody of their one-year-old child.

The court found that the circumstances, including the mother's removal from her home and separation from her child based on an uncorroborated complaint, justified dispensing with the case conference.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the home, finding the father's constructive trust claim unsubstantiated, and awarded her temporary sole custody of the child with a detailed access schedule for the father.

The applicant brought an interim family law motion seeking child support, spousal support, imputation of income, parenting orders, financial disclosure, and interim disbursement from proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed portions of the motion and sought different parenting arrangements and disclosure of medical records.

The court found the respondent had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and imputed income based on an agreed historical average.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered, the primary residence of both children was confirmed with the applicant, and a parenting schedule for the respondent was established.

The court also ordered an interim disbursement from the matrimonial home proceeds to the applicant and directed the parties to participate in family counselling and seek the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to vary custody of the parties' daughter from the applicant to himself.

The proceedings were stalled by disputes over financial disclosure, particularly regarding the respondent's income as a self-employed real estate agent and his financial arrangement with his fiancée.

The court addressed multiple disclosure orders, finding technical compliance with procedural rules but noting the respondent's overall dilatoriness.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, stayed the respondent's custody motion pending completion of financial disclosure, and set conditions for any access requests.

The matter was adjourned for further case conference.

The applicant brought a motion for child support based on an imputed income of $100,000 for the respondent in 2010.

The respondent, a self-employed real estate salesman, had reported minimal income to tax authorities but demonstrated substantial lifestyle expenditures and large bank deposits.

The court found that the respondent's business expense deductions were excessive and not adequately supported by documentation.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent and ordered child support of $880 per month retroactive to January 1, 2010.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to special expenses including after-school care and summer camp.

The respondent brought a motion for specified access to the child, seeking to expand upon the existing access order dated 8 April 2011.

The respondent requested additional access on various occasions including special family events, extended summer access, and permission for family representatives to conduct access exchanges.

The court found the respondent to be a committed father and granted certain requests while denying others.

The court granted three weeks of summer access in 2012, access to a wedding and trip to Florida, and permitted designated family members to conduct access exchanges.

The court denied requests for additional weekday access for lessons, extra holiday access pending further agreement on special occasions, and certain specific date requests.

The court directed that the Children's Lawyer provide input on outstanding issues regarding special occasions and holiday arrangements.