Gary S. Joseph

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to travel with the parties' three children to Texas for her summer parenting time, despite a separation agreement requiring the children's residence to remain in Toronto.

The respondent father opposed the motion due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the closure of the Canada-US border, and concerns that the mother intended to permanently relocate the children to Texas.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that non-essential travel to a COVID-19 hotspot would recklessly expose the children to risk and was not in their best interests.

The court ordered that the children remain in Canada and adopted the father's proposed summer schedule.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an updated section 30 parenting assessment prior to trial.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the conflict between the parties had not changed and that the assessor could provide updated opinions via oral evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant change in circumstances to justify a further intrusive assessment and noting that the trial judge could adequately determine the issues with the original report and viva voce evidence.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding father.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking a restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and its immediate partition and sale.

The respondent husband consented to exclusive possession but opposed the remaining relief.

The court found no urgency to justify hearing the motion for a restraining order before a case conference.

However, the court held that it was in the interests of justice to order the immediate partition and sale of the home, as the wife had a prima facie right to it, the husband had previously requested the same relief in his pleadings, and delaying the inevitable order would only increase costs and waste judicial resources.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

Prior to marriage, they signed a contract excluding the applicant's significant corporate assets from net family property but requiring him to pay child support for the respondent's two children from a previous relationship.

The applicant sought to set aside the child support provision, arguing he no longer stood in the place of a parent.

The court upheld the marriage contract, finding the applicant stood in loco parentis and that setting aside the provision would be unconscionable.

The court determined the applicant's income based on his spending habits rather than corporate profits, ordering child support for all three children and spousal support for five years.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting his 18-year-old daughter child support and university expenses.

The daughter had withdrawn from parental control, and the central issue was whether this withdrawal was involuntary under s. 31(2) of the Family Law Act.

The appeal judge found that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment because there were significant facts in dispute regarding the voluntariness of the withdrawal that required a trial.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The interim support order was varied to account for financial contributions made by the mother.

Following the dismissal of the father's motion regarding his daughter's withdrawal from parental control, the daughter and mother sought costs.

The court found that while the father did not act in bad faith, he acted unreasonably by omitting relevant evidence, relying on inadmissible letters, using accusatory language, and failing to respond to offers to settle.

The daughter was awarded full indemnity costs of $6,063.52.

The mother's claim for costs was dismissed as her participation was not necessary.

The parties separated and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over the parenting of their young daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to San Francisco, where her extended family lived.

The father opposed the move, sought equal parenting time, and requested that no custody order be made.

The court declined to make a formal custody order, finding it would only fuel the conflict.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move was primarily for her preference and would disrupt the child's consistent and beneficial relationship with her father.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule based on the assessor's recommendations, granted the mother final decision-making on medical and religious issues, and granted the father final decision-making on educational issues.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce the terms of a final order and sought costs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and also sought costs, arguing she was substantially successful because the father only succeeded on two of the eleven terms he sought to enforce.

The court found the father was the successful party, noting that the breach of any term in a court order is one breach too many.

However, the court apportioned costs for divided success, discounting the father's partial indemnity costs claim by 60 percent and awarding him $6,400.

Following a judgment setting aside certain transactions as fraudulent conveyances, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondents' coordinated efforts to defeat the course of justice and the applicant's offer to settle justified substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court reduced the costs award by 25% to account for the applicant's divided success on certain issues and her failure to fulfill procedural obligations.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of $83,179.84.

The applicant sought relief under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act alleging that the respondent debtor transferred funds and assets to associates and family members to defeat enforcement of family law support and equalization orders exceeding $1 million.

The court examined several real estate transactions and financial transfers, including funds used to purchase condominium units and a $325,000 transfer to the debtor’s brother.

Applying the badges of fraud doctrine, the court found that multiple transfers were non‑arm’s‑length, unsupported by consideration, conducted in secrecy, and made while litigation and court orders restricting asset depletion were in effect.

The court concluded that the transfers were intended to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors and declared them void as against the debtor’s creditors.

Orders were granted permitting seizure and sale of properties representing the proceeds of the fraudulent transfers and requiring repayment of funds transferred abroad.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to vary an interim access order requiring a nanny to accompany the child during access visits.

The nanny had resigned, leading to a stalemate in which the applicant mother refused unsupervised access while the father refused supervision, resulting in the child not seeing the father for several weeks.

The court interpreted the earlier order and held that the term “accompany” did not mean supervision.

In the child’s best interests, the court ordered temporary unsupervised access for the father, with supervised transitions between the parents.

The court also permitted the mother to travel temporarily with the child to California for a limited visit with her family.

Following a partially successful appeal from a family arbitration award concerning equalization, child support, and spousal support, the court addressed costs of the leave motion and appeal.

The appellant succeeded in setting aside the retroactive child support award and in having the lump sum spousal support award reconsidered, while the respondent preserved most other components of the arbitration award.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that success on the appeal was divided.

Given the mixed and substantial success of both parties, it was inappropriate to treat either side as the substantially successful party.

The court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

Following several complex family law motions concerning support issues, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $45,000 plus additional preparation costs, asserting complete success and unreasonable conduct by the respondent.

The respondent argued the applicant achieved only partial success and that significant reductions to child and spousal support constituted substantial success for him.

Applying the flexible approach to costs under r. 24 of the Family Law Rules and emphasizing proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court found the applicant was mostly successful but that the amount claimed was excessive.

The court awarded $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as expenses related to support.

Following a 15‑day custody and access trial, the successful party sought $493,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of a settlement offer and full indemnity thereafter.

The court analyzed success at trial, the parties’ settlement offers, litigation conduct, and reasonableness of the claimed fees under the Family Law Rules.

The court found the moving party clearly more successful and that his settlement offers were more closely aligned with the trial outcome than the opposing party’s offers.

However, the court reduced the recovery due to unreasonable conduct, including surreptitious recording of the opposing party during disputes involving the children.

Costs were fixed at $345,000 on a partial recovery basis and ordered payable within 90 days.

The court determined costs arising from competing family law motions involving a request to strike pleadings and a motion to amend an answer.

The respondent obtained an adjournment of the applicant’s motion and leave to amend the answer, while the applicant successfully limited the proposed amendments and resisted a request for questioning.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found that success was divided and that both parties had behaved unreasonably in aspects of the litigation.

The applicant had commenced a motion prematurely and before an agreed hearing date, while the respondent delayed bringing a motion to amend despite earlier leave to do so.

In light of the divided success and unreasonable conduct on both sides, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave to appeal an arbitration award, the respondent sought costs on a full recovery or substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a reduced quantum due to his success on the issue of the appropriate test for leave to appeal.

The court found that while the respondent was the successful party, the applicant's partial success warranted a reduction.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including duplication of counsel time, the court fixed costs payable to the respondent at $9,000.