Gary S. Joseph

The respondent mother brought a motion in the Superior Court of Justice to enforce child support and section 7 expenses provisions of a separation agreement that had been filed with the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce or vary a final order of the Ontario Court of Justice arising from section 35 of the Family Law Act.

The applicant's cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding was transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion where the respondent sought to introduce issues regarding a joint venture, a mortgage renewal, and the distribution of trust funds.

The applicant was successful in opposing the joint venture issue, while the respondent was successful on the mortgage renewal issue.

The court found that both parties had taken unreasonable positions on the issues they lost.

Given the divided success, the court declined to award costs to either party and cautioned them against taking unreasonable positions that hinder the resolution of the family law dispute.

In an ongoing family law dispute, the court addressed several issues regarding the court-ordered sale of eight properties.

The respondent brought a motion to vary the order to sell the properties, arguing they were no longer required to pay the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's continued obstructive conduct and the uncertainty of receivership costs and tax liabilities.

The court also established a mechanism for the applicant to obtain vesting orders if the respondent obstructed the sales, directed a trial of an issue regarding the validity of third-party mortgages, and refused to release sale proceeds to the respondent's company until the applicant was fully paid.

The respondent sought costs of $13,735.43 on a full recovery basis following a motion regarding the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The court found divided success on the motion, as the respondent succeeded on three of five issues but failed to have the applicant's pleadings struck immediately or the daily penalty increased.

Although the respondent beat her offer to settle, the court discounted her costs due to her failure to comply with the Practice Direction regarding the length of motion materials and improperly scheduling a long motion as a short motion.

Costs were fixed at $8,250 payable by the applicant.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary a preservation order under section 12 of the Family Law Act to allow him to obtain a mortgage to close the purchase of a pre-construction condominium.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, citing the husband's failure to disclose significant assets, including foreign bank accounts and real estate, and his history of transferring funds out of the country.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions, the court found a serious question to be tried regarding the equalization payment, a risk of irreparable harm due to potential dissipation of assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The motion to vary the preservation order was dismissed.

The applicant wife brought a motion for contempt sentencing and the appointment of an investigative receiver following the respondent husband's deliberate and flagrant failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The respondent brought a motion to adjourn the sentencing and to sell certain properties.

The court dismissed the adjournment, fined the respondent $50,000 for contempt, and appointed an investigative receiver over his personal and corporate assets to determine his true financial circumstances.

The court also ordered the sale of several properties to fund the receivership and satisfy outstanding court orders, piercing the corporate veil to do so.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to strike the respondent father's pleadings and impose a daily penalty of $3,500 for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent in breach of numerous obligations, including the failure to deliver an income and business valuation report.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings (except regarding parenting) would be struck if he failed to deliver the required reports by a final deadline.

However, the court dismissed the request for a daily monetary penalty, holding that such a penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 1(8) absent a formal finding of civil contempt under Rule 31.

In a high-net-worth family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in civil contempt for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent engaged in a deliberate and continuous course of conduct to delay disclosure, hide assets through corporate restructuring, and dissipate funds despite a non-dissipation order.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully and flagrantly breached the clear and unambiguous disclosure orders.

The respondent was found in contempt, with a sentencing hearing to be scheduled.

Following a motion for interim spousal support and disbursements, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought full-indemnity costs of $57,457.39, alleging bad faith by the respondent for failing to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent exhibited an element of bad faith regarding financial disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $46,000.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements.

The parties were in a six-year marriage and the respondent husband is a high-income earner residing in Germany with significant wealth.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for high-income earners, imputing an annual investment income of over $4 million to the respondent based on a 12.3% rate of return.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump-sum of $326,315 in uncharacterized interim spousal support and $186,000 in interim disbursements, noting the latter had already been satisfied by a prior without-prejudice payment.

Following a nine-week high-conflict parenting trial where the applicant father was wholly successful and the respondent mother was found in contempt and to have acted in bad faith, the court determined costs.

The father beat multiple offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs on a full recovery basis for the trial and contempt motion, and partial recovery for pre-trial steps, fixing the total costs at $677,610 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be set off against spousal support and equalization.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders in a high-net-worth family law proceeding.

The parties separated after a traditional marriage where the applicant was the primary caregiver and the respondent was an entrepreneur with complex, international business interests.

The respondent failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure, claiming his finances were complex and he had lost everything, despite evidence of lavish spending.

The court ordered the respondent to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and serve expert valuation reports within 20 days.

The court also appointed an independent supervising solicitor to review quarantined documents found in the matrimonial home for relevance and privilege.

Given the respondent's lack of disclosure and unilateral financial actions, the court granted a preservation order restraining him from depleting his assets, subject to ordinary business exceptions.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children, noting the respondent's frequent travel and lack of day-to-day involvement.

Finally, the court imputed an income of $1,200,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum of $1,700,000 for interim child and spousal support, citing the real risk of non-payment of periodic support.

The mother appealed a temporary order granting the father decision-making authority over whether their 10-year-old child should receive routine childhood vaccinations.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by changing the status quo before trial, taking judicial notice of vaccine safety, and relying on unsworn letters from physicians.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the best interests of the child test, properly took judicial notice of adjudicative and legislative facts regarding vaccine safety, and made no reversible error in admitting the medical evidence or deciding the motion without the child's views and preferences.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making and parenting time for their seven-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and the continuation of a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making, a reduction in the father's parenting time, and a change to the child's surname.

The court found that neither parent should have sole decision-making due to the risk of marginalizing the other, and instead ordered a parallel parenting regime with divided domains of authority.

The court maintained the 2/2/3 schedule to provide stability and dismissed the mother's request to change the child's surname.

Following the dismissal of the mother's appeal from two family law arbitration awards, the father sought full recovery of costs totaling $99,284.63 based on offers to settle.

The mother argued for no costs or costs fixed at $20,000.

The court found the father was presumptively entitled to full recovery of costs from the date of his first offer to settle, which was as favourable as the outcome of the appeal.

After considering the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and noting discrepancies in the hours docketed by both sides, the court fixed the father's costs at $70,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The mother appealed two arbitration awards that granted the father equal parenting time and ordered her to pay $25,000 in costs.

She argued the arbitrator erred in applying the best interests of the child test, changing the parenting schedule without expert evidence, and assuming equal time would reduce conflict.

The mother also sought to introduce fresh evidence, including an affidavit from a former therapist.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the arbitrator's decisions.

The court also rejected most of the fresh evidence, noting the therapist did not qualify as a participant expert and the evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court found the applicant was largely successful and that her offers to settle were as or more favourable than the final order on most issues.

The court also found the respondent engaged in bad faith by unilaterally withdrawing funds from a joint account and unnecessarily seizing a vehicle from the parties' daughter.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs, with $15,000 payable forthwith and $10,000 to be set off against any future equalization payment owed by the applicant.

Following a motion and cross-motion with divided success, the applicant sought costs of $25,000.

The respondent argued for no costs or costs reserved, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was presumed entitled to costs as the respondent's motion was dismissed and the applicant achieved some success.

The court fixed costs at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the respondent within 120 days due to his limited means.

The parties were involved in a family law dispute over custody and access.

The applicant obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order and an order for supervised access based on evidence from a witness (C.B.W.) alleging the respondent solicited sexual services from minors.

The respondent brought a motion to question C.B.W. before filing responding evidence, citing concerns about self-incrimination in an ongoing police investigation.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to compel the respondent to file responding evidence and attend questioning.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it would be unfair to allow questioning without reply evidence.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to file responding affidavits and attend questioning, holding that the best interests of the child outweighed the respondent's self-incrimination concerns.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside ten previous court orders, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served under the Hague Service Convention.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking to refuse the respondent an audience because he remained in continuous breach of those orders.

The court held that a litigant cannot ignore court orders and still demand an audience.

The court directed that the respondent must first bring a motion to stay the impugned orders; if successful, he may proceed with his jurisdiction motion, but if unsuccessful, he will be refused an audience until he complies.