Gary Stuart Joseph

The parties separated after a six-year marriage, leading to a highly contentious 25-day trial over custody, support, and a malicious prosecution claim.

The trial judge granted sole custody to the respondent mother, ordered child and spousal support, dismissed the appellant father's malicious prosecution claim, and awarded the respondent $254,500 in costs, with $10,000 designated as support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The appellant appealed the custody, support, and malicious prosecution decisions, arguing trial unfairness due to the exclusion of secretly recorded tapes and his retained experts.

The respondent cross-appealed the costs designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, application of the malicious prosecution test, rejection of the appellant's undue hardship claim based on staggering legal fees, or discretionary apportionment of costs.

The appellant and respondent, former common-law partners, resolved their family law proceedings through mediation/arbitration.

The appellant subsequently issued a civil statement of claim against the respondent and her counsel, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation regarding child support and financial disclosure, and seeking damages.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and barred by res judicata.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the civil action was an abuse of process attempting to circumvent the family law statutory scheme, an impermissible collateral attack on existing family court orders, and barred by cause of action estoppel and the appellant's prior consent to the settlements.

Following the dismissal of the appellant mother's stay motion in a child protection proceeding, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the appellant's unreasonable behaviour, including her delay in perfecting the appeal and her failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

Applying the principles from Boucher and the factors in Family Law Rule 24(11), the court fixed the respondent's costs at $16,500 plus HST and disbursements, payable forthwith.

The mother appealed a trial decision that transferred sole custody of her two children to the father due to her relentless campaign of parental alienation.

The trial judge had severely restricted the mother's access, making it conditional on her engaging with a specified expert for counselling and assessment, and ordered a review of access after six months.

The mother also appealed a $160,000 costs award made against her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction to order a review, did not impermissibly delegate access determination, and properly exercised her discretion in awarding costs given the mother's bad faith conduct.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order reviewing spousal and child support under a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons deficient for failing to determine the appellant's income or justify departing from the Child Support Guidelines and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

To avoid a new trial, the Court of Appeal imputed the appellant's income at $250,000 due to his failure to make full disclosure.

The Court applied the Guidelines, ordering $4,071 monthly for child support and $4,597 monthly for spousal support, and directed proportional sharing of section 7 expenses.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to allow a deduction for reasonably foreseeable future legal costs related to ongoing litigation at the date of separation, allowing a $300,000 deduction.

The Court also corrected calculation errors in retroactive spousal support and adjusted ongoing spousal support to $1,400 per month.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the equalization payment and spousal support amounts reduced.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment ordering joint custody of the parties' two children, arguing the parents could not communicate, there was a history of domestic violence, and the order lacked a dispute resolution mechanism.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had an evidentiary basis to conclude the parties could effectively communicate once court orders preventing contact were lifted.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the domestic abuse allegations or the access schedule.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings for failure to provide disclosure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to consider the appellant's efforts to provide disclosure, the full procedural history including a previous mistrial, and the significant assets at stake.

The order was set aside, the pleadings were reinstated, and the matter was remitted to a case management judge.

The mother appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt for failing to encourage the child's relationship with the father and taking active steps to discourage it.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by proceeding despite dispute resolution clauses and her request for a stay due to the father's financial non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in proceeding with the urgent matter involving high conflict and alleged parental alienation.

The Court also upheld the contempt finding, noting there was ample evidence, including the mother's own admissions, to support it.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning spousal support, property provisions of an agreement, custody, failure to grant a divorce, division of equity in the matrimonial home, and costs.

The respondent conceded the issues regarding the divorce order and the deduction of the existing mortgage from the matrimonial home equity.

The Court of Appeal granted the divorce and amended the property order accordingly.

The remainder of the appeal was dismissed, as the trial judge's decisions on spousal support, repudiation of the property agreement, and custody were supported by the evidence.

The appellant husband appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary spousal and child support obligations contained in minutes of settlement.

He argued that the respondent wife's remarriage to a wealthy man constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew of the serious relationship heading toward marriage when he signed the minutes of settlement, meaning the remarriage was foreseen and could not constitute a material change.

The court also upheld the child support and costs orders.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order regarding custody and parenting time under the Divorce Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the 'maximum contact' principle under s. 17(a) of the Divorce Act.

The court noted that the allocation of parenting time was consistent with the appellants' own submissions, albeit made on the assumption they would be the custodial parents.

Minor factual errors by the motion judge were not overriding.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $13,000.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleading for failing to fully comply with outstanding court orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant had partially complied and that the precise obligations under the orders were unclear.

The order striking the pleading was set aside, and the parties were directed to clarify the obligations, after which the appellant would have 45 days to comply.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order permitting the respondent to relocate with the children to Hamilton.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the move was a material change in circumstances, that it was not reasonably foreseeable, and that it was in the best interests of the children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the law, made no palpable and overriding errors, and properly considered all factors regarding the children's best interests.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision regarding child custody and support.

He argued the trial judge erred in not ordering joint custody and parallel parenting, and in awarding lump sum child support based on imputed income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the parties' inability to agree on important decisions justified sole custody.

The court also upheld the imputed income of $50,000, noting the appellant's underemployment and failure to make proper financial disclosure.

Costs of $9,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed orders dismissing his claims for invasion of privacy and under s. 35 of the Children's Law Reform Act, and restraining him from commencing other proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, amending the order to clarify that the dismissal of claims was without prejudice to the appellant's right to move to add the respondent as a party in the ongoing matrimonial proceeding.

The court also deleted the restraining order on consent, but upheld the motion judge's award of substantial indemnity costs.

No costs were awarded for the appeal.

The appellant wife appealed a trial decision that limited her remedy for the respondent husband's unconscionable conduct to 100 per cent of the difference between their net family properties under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The husband had surreptitiously encumbered and sold a property, effectively gifting $190,000 to a third party to exclude it from his net family property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 5(6) empowers a court to award up to 100 per cent of the value of the offending spouse's net family property, not just the difference between the parties' properties.

The trial judgment was varied to award the appellant the full value of the respondent's net family property.

The appellant appealed orders concerning real properties and retroactive spousal support, arguing he was denied procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal rejected the procedural fairness claim and upheld the disposition regarding the real properties.

However, the respondent conceded that the application/motion judge erred regarding the date of separation, resulting in a reduction of the retroactive spousal support award by $18,600.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent a 50% interest in a farm property based on resulting trust principles and ordering a lump sum child support payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the property division, finding no error in the trial judge's application of resulting trust principles or rejection of the appellant's 'unclean hands' argument.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding child support, finding the trial judge erred by ordering a lump sum payment without sufficient evidence to calculate the amount under the Child Support Guidelines, including assumptions about post-secondary education.

The Court substituted an order for ongoing periodic child support of $345 per month and ordered $40,000 from the appellant's share of the farm sale proceeds to be paid into court or the Family Responsibility Office as security.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay substantial spousal and child support, equalization, and costs.

He challenged the trial judge's orders that pierced the corporate veil of his solely-owned companies to secure the amounts owed, and that made the costs and pre-judgment interest enforceable as spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the piercing of the corporate veil, finding it appropriate in family law cases where a spouse completely dominates a corporation and uses it to shield assets from support obligations.

The Court also upheld the enforcement of costs as spousal support under the Family Responsibility and Support Enforcement Act, but allowed the appeal in part to remove pre-judgment interest on the equalization payment from being enforceable as support.