Gary Stuart Joseph

The appellant husband appealed the trial judge's decisions regarding spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, and the dismissal of his third-party claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of mental distress against a former neighbour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds except for a conceded error in calculating section 7 expenses, finding that the trial judge's determinations on income calculation, support, and the third-party claims were supported by the record and free from reversible error.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to stay Ontario family law proceedings regarding custody of the parties' child.

The mother had moved from Indiana to Ontario while pregnant, and the child was born in Ontario.

The Indiana court had previously granted the father custody of the unborn child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the child was physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence was available there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants brought two motions: one to vacate a longstanding non‑dissipation order secured against their property and another seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal an interlocutory mistrial order declaring a mistrial after thirteen days of trial.

The court considered the test under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the mistrial decision raised serious and important issues regarding whether trial length and scheduling constraints could justify terminating a trial.

The court granted both the extension of time and leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal open to serious debate and of significance to the administration of justice.

The court also vacated the non‑dissipation order, concluding that the evidentiary basis for the order had been discredited and that there was no ongoing risk of asset dissipation warranting such security.

Following a family law appeal in which the court removed a ten-year cap on spousal support and made support indefinite subject to variation on a material change in circumstances, the parties disputed the wording of the resulting order.

The respondent sought to preserve a deeming provision from the trial order that remarriage or three years of cohabitation would automatically constitute a material change.

The court refused to include that provision, holding that its order should track its reasons and should not fetter the discretion of a future judge on a variation application.

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.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to repay $195,538.98 to a joint line of credit and $10,000 to a corporate respondent, arising from funds withdrawn during matrimonial proceedings.

The appellant argued the repayment obligations had not matured and were tied to other outstanding financial issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the repayment obligations had matured based on the clear terms of the signed documents and the availability of funds, and that no triable issue was established.

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 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.

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 20-year traditional marriage, the appellant challenged a trial judgment concerning spousal support, equalization, a 1998 estate freeze, and costs.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the shares received in the estate freeze were a gift, that the appellant could not withdraw her admission to that effect late in the trial, and that the estate freeze did not amount to a fraudulent conveyance under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act because she was neither a creditor nor an "other" person with standing at the relevant time and fraudulent intent was not established.

The court also held that admitting the father's prior affidavit did not render the trial unfair.

However, the court varied the support order by removing the ten-year limit and making spousal support indefinite, subject to variation or termination on a material change in circumstances, and reduced the monthly rate for payment of the costs award.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of her claims arising from a property transfer and alleged monies owing, arguing trial unfairness, inadequate reasons, and errors in the rejection of resulting trust and constructive trust remedies.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to restrict cross-examination on a document withheld in breach of a trial management order and that no unfairness resulted.

It further held that the trial judge gave adequate reasons and made factual findings open on the record supporting the conclusions that consideration was provided for the property transfer, no unjust enrichment was established, and the money-advanced claim failed.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed appeal costs to the respondent.

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.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

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.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a family arbitration award dealing with equalization, child support, and spousal support following marriage breakdown.

The court held that most of the arbitrator’s findings—including valuation of employee stock options using the Black‑Scholes methodology, rejection of the expert’s proposed discount, calculation of income for child support, and refusal to conduct a shared‑custody set‑off analysis—raised issues of mixed fact and law and disclosed no reviewable error.

However, the arbitrator erred in law by awarding retroactive child support without conducting the analysis required by governing Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The arbitrator also failed to justify a lump sum spousal support award with proper consideration of the governing principles.

Those two portions of the award were set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of spousal support.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his pleadings for failure to comply with previous financial disclosure orders in a high-conflict matrimonial dispute.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the pleadings, finding that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort and was not warranted given the substantial disclosure already made, the lack of itemized missing disclosure, the absence of wilful disobedience, and the principle of proportionality.

The parties separated after a 19-year marriage.

The wife brought a motion to strike the husband's pleadings, alleging he wilfully breached multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The motion judge granted the motion, struck the husband's pleadings, and ordered an uncontested trial.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by characterizing the husband's disclosure as merely 'token' and ignoring evidence of substantial compliance.

The Court reaffirmed that striking pleadings is a drastic remedy of last resort in family law cases.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim arbitration award in a family law dispute concerning valuation of corporate and trust interests for equalization purposes.

The arbitrator had dismissed the applicant’s request that the respondent obtain an independent business valuation report, finding a calculation valuation report prepared by the respondent’s expert sufficient.

The court held that the proper test for leave to appeal an interim arbitration award is that in s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act rather than rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the importance of the matters at stake justified an appeal or that determination of the legal questions would significantly affect the parties’ rights.

The applicant remained free to challenge the valuation evidence or obtain his own report at trial.