Gary Stuart Joseph

This is a costs endorsement following a supplemental costs order.

The applicant, Mr. S, sought recovery of costs from the respondent, Ms. A, which included previous contempt penalties, appeal costs, motion costs, and trial costs.

Ms. A had filed for bankruptcy and sought to adjourn the costs hearing, which was dismissed.

The court confirmed Mr. S's entitlement to set off outstanding costs against child and spousal support.

Mr. S requested over $53,000 in costs for the hearing, while Ms. A argued for each party to bear their own costs or pay $13,000.

The court disallowed costs for multiple counsel (except for a bankruptcy lawyer whose retention was deemed necessary due to Ms. A's arguments) and noted the absence of an offer to settle from either party.

Ultimately, the court awarded Mr. S a partial recovery of $27,685, citing the lack of effort to resolve costs as a factor for the partial award.

The applicant father sought to set off retroactive child support and section 7 expenses against a substantial costs award owed to him by the respondent mother, who had declared bankruptcy.

The court granted the set-off, finding that the respondent had litigated with impunity and that the children would not suffer undue hardship.

The court also provided directions on future spousal support and ongoing child support issues, noting that ongoing spousal support could not be crystallized into a lump sum due to potential for variation.

Peter Keeash was convicted of second-degree murder, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility for the life sentence and the sentences for the other convictions.

The Crown sought an 18-year parole ineligibility period and consecutive sentences for the other charges, while the defence sought 12 years and concurrent sentences.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's character, and Gladue factors, including his traumatic background and the fact that two victims were Indigenous women, which required primary consideration of denunciation and deterrence.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with 14 years of parole ineligibility for murder, and concurrent sentences of five years for threats and forcible confinement of one victim, and three years for threats to another.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA submission were also made.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that the date of separation for an equalization claim under the Family Law Act was February 2015.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in making credibility findings by failing to address alleged inconsistencies in the respondent's evidence and in making findings of fact based on conflicting affidavits not subject to thorough cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence and credibility, and no unfairness in the trial procedure regarding witness cross-examination, noting the appellant had requested the limited cross-examination.

This decision addresses a motion to change brought by the respondent, Craig, to terminate child and spousal support obligations following his retirement, and a cross-motion by the applicant, Victoria, to increase spousal support and continue child support.

The court found Craig's retirement at age 64 to be reasonable and a material change in circumstances, despite Victoria's arguments that it was premature.

The court also acknowledged the termination of Victoria's long-term disability benefits as a material change.

Ultimately, spousal support for Victoria was terminated effective December 31, 2021, due to her significant net worth and perceived improvident financial management, emphasizing the objective of self-sufficiency.

Child support for Natalie was continued until August 31, 2023, for her graduate studies, but not beyond, and specific s. 7 expenses were capped and apportioned based on previous orders.

The appellant sought to overturn a motion judge's finding that a settlement was reached in mediation and the subsequent granting of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The appellate court agreed that substantial evidence supported the existence of a settlement agreement, despite the absence of written minutes, and upheld the appropriateness of partial summary judgment given the limited remaining issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant Father sought decision-making responsibility for the parties' child's vaccinations.

The Respondent Mother opposed, arguing she was uniquely suited due to her chiropractic background and research, and raising concerns about the child's genetics and potential adverse reactions.

The court qualified the Applicant's medical experts (pediatrician/geneticist and pediatric infectious disease specialist) but rejected the Respondent's proposed experts due to lack of relevant expertise, novel science reliability issues, and bias.

The court found the child to be in good health with no contraindications to vaccination and determined the Applicant's approach of consulting medical professionals was in the child's best interest.

The Applicant Father was granted sole decision-making responsibility for all vaccinations, including the Covid-19 vaccine.

This case concerns the trial of David Hui and Musab Saboon for the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Lee Chiodo.

The victim's body was found shot in the head on Mission Island.

The Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of Marshall Hardy-Fox, an accomplice whose murder charge was withdrawn after he implicated the accused.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to Hardy-Fox's evidence, scrutinizing it carefully but ultimately finding it credible due to corroborating independent evidence, including Facebook messages, surveillance videos, and forensic findings.

The court found that the kidnapping "crystallized" with threats and a gun in the car, and that the murder was both constructive (arising from the kidnapping/unlawful confinement) and planned and deliberate.

Both accused were found guilty of kidnapping and first-degree murder.

This motion concerned the consolidation and case management of three interconnected legal proceedings: a family law matter and two civil actions.

The family law proceeding involved claims for child support, equalization, and setting aside a separation agreement due to alleged undisclosed commissions received by the former spouse.

The two civil actions, brought by Halton and Solution, alleged fraudulent diversion of commissions by the former spouse and his common-law partner's company.

The court granted the motion for consolidation and case management, finding significant factual overlap, a high likelihood of inconsistent findings if tried separately, and that consolidation would lead to a more just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

The applicant appealed two arbitration awards.

The court partially granted the appeal regarding a property expense accounting issue (declaring the award a nullity due to lack of written agreement for jurisdiction) and dismissed the appeal regarding children's expenses.

This endorsement addresses costs.

The court found divided success but noted the applicant's unreasonable conduct in challenging jurisdiction on appeal after previously agreeing to arbitration.

Despite partial success, the applicant was deprived of costs for the issue she won, and the respondent was awarded $10,000 in costs for the issue he won, reflecting the applicant's unreasonable conduct and the respondent's more reasonable settlement efforts.

The appellant (father) appealed a trial judge's order that reversed the primary residence of his son, J.K., from him to the respondent (mother), and granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The trial judge had found the father to be abusive and not credible, and the mother credible and a victim of parental alienation created by the father.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test and in failing to meaningfully consider the recommendations of a court-appointed assessor, Dr. Goldstein, whose reports were largely disregarded due to findings by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on best interests and credibility.

While disagreeing with the trial judge's interpretation that family law proceedings are not "civil proceedings" under s. 36(3) of the RHPA (which prohibits admissibility of certain regulatory records), the Court found that the admissible facts (complaint, investigation, public undertakings) were sufficient to justify giving no weight to Dr. Goldstein's opinions.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The applicant appealed two arbitration awards concerning family law matters, challenging the arbitrator's originating jurisdiction and whether he exceeded his authority.

The court held that the arbitrator had originating jurisdiction based on the parties' separation agreement and minutes of settlement, despite the absence of a separate prescribed family arbitration agreement, but noted that such awards are not enforceable without regulatory compliance.

The appeal regarding children's expenses was dismissed, upholding the arbitrator's decision.

However, the appeal concerning the Forest Hill property expenses was allowed, as the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction on that issue because the agreement to arbitrate it was not in writing as required by the separation agreement.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order transferring primary care of the parties' two children to the respondent father, which included an initial period of no contact for the mother and a staged increase in parenting time.

The trial judge's decision, made after a 39-day trial, found the mother had intentionally undermined parenting schedules and made false allegations of sexual abuse to terminate the children's relationship with the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's exercise of discretion and factual findings, emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges in parenting orders, especially when the decision has already been implemented.

The court found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or her consideration of the Divorce Act regarding family violence, as the mother's allegations were not established.

The appellant wife appealed a summary judgment dismissing her application for equalization and spousal support, brought over a decade after their divorce.

She alleged the respondent husband misrepresented his financial position during their divorce negotiations, claiming $0 net worth while bank disclosures showed $21 million.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by: 1) allowing the summary judgment motion without the respondent filing a required answer and financial statement, which is crucial for financial disclosure in family law; and 2) misinterpreting the test for extending limitation periods under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, by requiring "established fraud" instead of the lower threshold of "apparent grounds for relief" and "good faith" delay.

The court emphasized the paramount importance of financial disclosure in family law proceedings.

The appellant (P.I.A.) sought a stay of a trial judge's order transferring primary care and decision-making responsibility of two children to the respondent (W.S.), pending appeal.

The motion judge applied the three-part test for a stay (serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience), with the overriding consideration being the children's best interests.

While a low threshold for serious question was met on one ground (admissibility of expert evidence), the court found no evidence of irreparable harm to the children and determined the balance of convenience favored maintaining the trial judge's order to restore the parenting relationship with the respondent.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This is an appeal by a father from a trial order regarding child support, retroactive child support, a charging order, and costs.

The trial judge imputed income to the father due to his failure to disclose and efforts to conceal income, awarded retroactive support, and secured obligations with a charging order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, upholding the trial judge's imputation of income, the retroactive child support award (consistent with the new Colucci framework), and the charging order, finding no palpable and overriding errors or jurisdictional issues.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied, as the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised given the father's conduct.

The appellant, Zafar Ahmad, appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default order that directed him to pay spousal support, designate the respondent, Maria Zia, as a life insurance beneficiary, and make an equalization payment.

Ahmad argued the default order was made without jurisdiction due to a prior arbitration or that the arbitration award gave rise to a res judicata defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate these specific claims under Ontario law, and that an arbitration agreement does not preclude court jurisdiction if a stay motion is not brought.

The court also found the res judicata doctrine inapplicable as the arbitration award did not address equalization or support.

The motion judge's discretionary decision, based on Ahmad's failure to promptly respond, provide an adequate explanation, establish an arguable case, provide financial disclosure, and lack of clean hands, was upheld.

The appellant father (K.K.) sought a stay pending appeal of a trial judge's order that changed the primary residence of the parties' son (J.K.) to the mother (M.M.) and restricted the father's contact, based on findings of parental alienation.

The mother opposed the stay and sought security for costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal (Motions Judge) applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious question regarding the trial judge's exclusion of assessor reports due to regulatory findings against the assessor.

However, the court determined that the irreparable harm and balance of convenience factors did not favour a stay, as it would disrupt the new living arrangements established in the child's best interests.

Both the father's motion for a stay and the mother's motion for security for costs were dismissed.

The appellant, David Joseph Lesko, appealed three aspects of a divorce order: an equalization payment to the respondent, Kelly Sue Lesko, based on her 50% interest in a pre-marriage property due to unjust enrichment; the determination of his income for support purposes; and the disallowance of his claim for credit against retroactive support for post-separation expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upholding the trial judge's findings regarding unjust enrichment, income calculation, and the discretion to deny the appellant's late-claimed expenses.