Gary Stuart Joseph

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, Laura Reggimenti, brought a motion for a preservation/non-dissipation order against the worldwide assets of the applicants, Joseph Rosati and Linda Rosati, in a protracted matrimonial litigation.

The court reviewed the history of previous non-dissipation orders and their vacating, as well as the applicants' real estate dealings.

Applying the criteria for a Mareva injunction from Chitel v. Rothbart, the court found no real risk of assets being removed or dissipated outside the ordinary course of business.

The court also considered the strength of the respondent's underlying fraud claim, noting admissions made by the respondent in prior proceedings that weakened her prima facie case.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that execution before judgment is an exceptional remedy not justified by the facts.

The respondent brought a motion seeking various grounds of relief pertaining to a protracted trial, including recalling herself to testify, filing a late expert report, and revisiting prior rulings regarding another expert's disqualification and amendment of particulars of fraud.

The court granted all substantive requests, allowing the respondent to attempt to requalify her expert, admit a new expert's report, amend her particulars of fraud, and provide further testimony.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's framework from *White Burgess Langille Inman* regarding expert witness independence and impartiality, finding the previous judge applied an overly stringent test.

Despite the respondent's substantial success on the motion, costs were denied due to her prior procedural failures.

The endorsement addresses the jurisdictional question of whether a Trial Management Conference (TMC) judge has the authority under the Family Law Rules to direct the sequence in which parties lead evidence at trial.

The Applicant argued for the Respondent to lead evidence first, while the Respondent contended the Applicant should lead in the ordinary course.

The court found that a TMC judge does possess such jurisdiction, citing Rules 1(7.2), 2, and 17(6) of the Family Law Rules, and the Supreme Court's direction in Hyrniak v. Mauldin to expand judges' roles in crafting trial procedures.

The court then requested further submissions on whether to exercise this jurisdiction in the present case.

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.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, interim disbursements, and a non-depletion order following the breakdown of a 51-year traditional marriage.

The respondent husband, who controlled a lucrative family business, had ceased paying support and changed his compensation structure from salary to share redemption, significantly depleting his capital.

The husband brought a cross-motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and cottage.

The court found the husband was deliberately attempting to evade his support and equalization obligations.

The court ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support, a retroactive lump sum of $187,500, and $200,000 in interim disbursements.

The court also issued a non-depletion order and adjourned the husband's motion for the sale of the properties to the trial judge.

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.

At a Trial Management Conference for a family law dispute involving custody and mobility issues, the court reviewed the parties' extensive witness lists which estimated 24 to 25 days of trial time.

The court had previously set a tentative 15-day trial date.

To ensure the trial proceeds efficiently and maximizes judicial resources, the court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to impose strict time limits, allocating 37.5 hours per party, and ordered counsel to reduce oral evidence.

The trial date remained tentative pending a supplementary TMC.

The appellant appealed the trial decisions regarding custody, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs following a high-conflict separation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the custody appeal as moot since the children were now adults.

The court upheld the trial judge's calculation of net family property, finding no error in excluding the pre-marriage mortgage on the matrimonial home or in denying an unequal division.

The spousal support award of $10,000 per month and the discretionary costs awards were also affirmed, with the court emphasizing deference to trial judges in family law matters.

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 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.

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 moving party, the stepfather of the children involved in a custody dispute, sought leave to appeal an order requiring him to provide his consent for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to obtain his Children's Aid Society and police records.

The OCL had been appointed to represent the children under section 89(3.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The stepfather argued that as a non-party not seeking custody, he should not be compelled to disclose these records.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the records were relevant to determining the best interests of the children and ensuring a safe home environment.

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.

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 husband brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim support order made during an application to vary.

He argued the motions judge lacked jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to grant interim relief on a variation application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting principles in the case law and no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The court noted the motions judge remained seized of the matter and the husband would have a full right of appeal once a final decision was made.

In this family law costs endorsement following a motion to strike, the applicant sought full indemnity costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith.

The court found repeated wilful breaches of court orders, including consent orders, and held that the respondent acted in bad faith within the meaning of Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Although full recovery costs were mandatory, the amount claimed was found excessive.

The court fixed costs at reduced full recovery amounts for fees and disbursements, plus HST.

The parties engaged in mediation-arbitration for family law matters.

The arbitrator awarded retroactive child support after finding the respondent misrepresented his income.

The appeal judge overturned the award, finding the arbitrator erred by not conducting a D.B.S. analysis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the appeal judge applied the wrong test for sufficiency of reasons and erred by disallowing the award without performing the analysis or remitting it.

The matter was referred back to the arbitrator to determine if D.B.S. applies.

The court also refused to hear the respondent's submissions due to his deliberate misconduct in failing to pay costs, child support, and disclose tax returns.

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.