Gary Joseph

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The trial addressed child support, spousal support, and equalization, including the valuation of the respondent's businesses and the matrimonial home.

The court imputed income to both parties, setting the applicant's income at $37,500 and the respondent's at $162,800 for 2013, factoring in corporate pre-tax income and personal expenses paid by his companies.

The court valued the respondent's businesses on a going concern basis rather than a liquidation basis.

The court also found that the respondent held a 50% beneficial interest in the matrimonial home, which was registered solely in the applicant's name, as the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted.

The applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property due to a tax liability was dismissed.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $699,309.14, plus ongoing child and spousal support.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to argue a motion for summary judgment mid-trial, and the respondent brought a motion for directions seeking a trial de novo following a mistrial declared by the previous trial judge.

The court dismissed the motion for leave for summary judgment, interpreting Rule 16(1) of the Family Law Rules to mean that such motions must be brought before a trial commences.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for a trial de novo, ordering that the trial continue from the point where the evidence concluded, in accordance with a prior Divisional Court order.

The applicant brought a wide‑ranging family law motion seeking relief including exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, disclosure, valuation of assets, and interim disbursements.

The respondent brought a competing motion seeking sale of the matrimonial home, changes to access, termination of a restraining order, and termination of interim financial obligations.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home and granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession, finding the sale would prejudice the applicant’s financial position and stability.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on lifestyle evidence and lack of disclosure, ordered interim child support and spousal support, and granted interim disbursements to level the litigation playing field.

The court also maintained the existing access schedule, refused to terminate the restraining order, and ordered extensive financial disclosure and asset valuation.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding under case management, the court conducted telephone case conferences to address disputes relating to parenting scheduling, confidentiality agreements affecting disclosure, and the impending power of sale of the former matrimonial home.

The parties had previously agreed not to bring parenting motions pending completion of a s. 30 assessment, but urgent issues arose concerning mortgage arrears and potential power of sale proceedings.

The court declined to authorize several proposed motions but granted the respondent leave to bring a limited motion concerning the power of sale timeline due to the urgency of the mortgage demand.

The judge maintained strict case management control, requiring leave and a timetable before any motions could be brought and scheduling a further case conference to determine next procedural steps.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral settlement reached during a settlement meeting.

The applicant argued that no binding settlement had been reached because essential terms remained unresolved and the parties intended any agreement to be finalized only through a comprehensive written separation agreement.

The court reviewed the governing principles for determining whether a binding settlement exists, including the requirement of consensus on all essential terms and objective evidence of a meeting of the minds.

Examining the parties’ post‑meeting correspondence and the proposed terms, the court found ongoing negotiations, material variations between proposals, and clear indications that a final written separation agreement was required.

As a result, the court concluded that no enforceable settlement had been reached.

Following a family law summary judgment motion regarding custody and access, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had obtained summary judgment granting sole custody but the access issue was directed to trial.

The applicant sought approximately $39,773 in costs using a “hybrid full recovery” approach.

The court held that although the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party on custody, the amount claimed was excessive for a one‑day motion decided on affidavit evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Following a lengthy marriage between two medical professionals, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve financial issues including equalization of net family property, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court determined that equalization under the Family Law Act was appropriate and rejected the applicant’s claim for an unequal division under s. 5(6), finding that equalization would not be unconscionable.

The court calculated an equalization payment and addressed numerous disputed property valuation issues, including notional disposition costs and treatment of premarital assets.

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs-based grounds due to reduced earning capacity after assuming greater childcare responsibilities during the marriage.

Orders were made for ongoing spousal support, retroactive support adjustments, set‑off child support, allocation of section 7 expenses, life insurance to secure support obligations, and timelines for vacating the matrimonial home.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

The court determined the validity of a marriage contract that excluded the respondent's interest in a family trust, finding it valid and enforceable.

The court also addressed the tracing of trust funds into the matrimonial home, finding the respondent entitled to exclude a portion of the home's value.

The court ordered a set-off of child support obligations due to a shared custody arrangement, and awarded the applicant a lump sum of $432,000 for spousal support.

The respondent's third-party claims against a family friend for invasion of privacy and interference with parental access were dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal an order granting the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under s. 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act based largely on hostile and threatening text messages sent during the parties’ separation.

The appellant argued the motion judge misapplied the law and that conflicting case law required more than text messages to establish “violence.” The court held that differing outcomes in other cases reflected discretionary factual determinations rather than conflicting legal principles.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the original order and held that intimidation or psychological abuse conveyed through text messages can constitute violence depending on the factual context.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.

The applicant wife sought an adjournment of a family law trial scheduled to commence in October 2012.

The litigation had been ongoing since 2005, with the trial previously adjourned.

The applicant argued an adjournment was necessary due to a recent document disclosure request, her new employment, and the need for time to prepare after her counsel withdrew following an unsuccessful motion for interim costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the disclosure request tactical, the employment issue self-created, and the withdrawal of counsel foreseeable.

The court held that granting an adjournment would cause significant non-compensable prejudice to the respondent and undermine the administration of justice.

The applicant wife moved for an order for $300,000 in interim costs, or alternatively, for the sale or encumbrance of the matrimonial home to fund ongoing family law litigation.

The court found that while res judicata did not bar the motion, the wife failed to meet her evidentiary burden.

She did not demonstrate that her claims regarding the marriage contract and family trust were meritorious, that the husband had the ability to pay the requested amount, or that the proposed expert fees and legal costs were necessary and reasonable.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

The applicant brought a motion for the release of $101,290 held in trust from the sale of properties vested in her to secure unpaid child support and equalization payments.

The respondent opposed the release, arguing the applicant was in breach of prior orders and liable for security for costs.

The court granted the release of funds, finding the applicant had a strong prima facie case for fraudulent conveyance and that her claim to the funds outweighed the respondent's potential claim for security for costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests to vary prior procedural orders and directed the parties to attend a settlement conference.