Gary Stuart Joseph

The husband appealed a finding of contempt and the resulting sanctions imposed for repeatedly breaching court orders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and most of the sanctions, noting the husband's repeated breaches despite warnings.

However, the Court set aside the motion judge's prohibition against the husband using a Russian court judgment regarding annulment, as this remedy was not sought by the wife and the admissibility of the foreign judgment should be left to the trial judge.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a final order regarding the sale of matrimonial properties, arguing it was granted without a case conference, despite the respondent's breach of a prior order, and without allowing her to complete her offer to purchase the matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the application judge.

The urgency of outstanding offers justified dispensing with the case conference, the prior breach was addressed by dispensing with consent for transfer, and there was reason to doubt the appellant's offer was better than a pending third-party offer.

The parties entered into a separation agreement to resolve corollary relief proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to comply with the agreement, which was granted.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement by way of motion rather than application, and that the motion judge erred in awarding interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a motion was appropriate because the underlying action had not been dismissed, and that the motion judge had statutory authority to award interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a judgment after his answer had been struck and he was barred from participating in the proceedings due to non-compliance with court orders.

He argued that the respondent's counsel breached a duty of candour and that the motion judge failed to test the merits of his struck answer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of the duty of candour and concluding that the motion judge properly considered the claim on the merits despite the struck pleadings.

The father applied to reduce his child support payments after the child began spending 50 percent of the time with him.

The Supreme Court of Canada established the proper approach to calculating child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for shared custody arrangements.

The Court held that there is no presumption in favour of the Guidelines amount or a simple set-off.

Instead, courts must take a contextual approach, considering the Table amounts, the increased costs of shared custody, and the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and the child.

The father was ordered to pay $500 per month.

This document is a summary note regarding the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Contino v. Leonelli-Contino.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, establishing that a party seeking to deviate from the Federal Child Support Guidelines under the shared custody provisions of section 9 must establish on clear and compelling evidence that the deviation is in the child's best interests, and the court must consider all statutory factors without giving pre-eminence to any single factor.

The appellant wife appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for unjust enrichment and challenging the calculation of the respondent husband's net family property.

The appellant argued she was unjustly enriched by advancing funds for home renovations and a basement apartment, but the trial judge found the funds and resulting income were reasonably pooled for household expenses.

The appellant also argued that real estate commissions on unclosed sales should have been valued with hindsight, excluding a failed deal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the unjust enrichment analysis and upholding the valuation of the commissions without hindsight, consistent with Supreme Court of Canada precedent.

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

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that a domestic contract was no longer operative because a plan of subdivision was never registered, allowing the appellant's investment interest to be included in the net family property calculation.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge imputing corporate income to the appellant and awarding retroactive spousal support based on the financial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the calculation of his net family property and the order for retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the deduction of disposition costs from the Cyprus properties, finding the trial judge correctly addressed the issue reserved by the parties' consent.

The Court upheld the imputation of $50,000 in income due to the appellant's failure to make full financial disclosure and lack of medical evidence of disability.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by varying the start date for retroactive support from the date of separation to the date the Answer and Counterpetition was issued, reducing the arrears accordingly.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for an equalization of family assets and the award of a $50,000 lump sum for spousal support.

The respondent cross-appealed the spousal support award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the equalization claim had already been disposed of in prior litigation.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the Court found no reason to interfere with the trial judge's spousal support award given the impossibility of reconstructing the protracted 20-year judicial history of the case.