Gary Stuart Joseph

The accused was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping in relation to a drug debt.

The court sentenced the accused to the mandatory life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years for first degree murder.

For the kidnapping conviction, considering the accused's role as an aider and his limited criminal record compared to his co-accused, the court imposed a concurrent sentence of 15 years imprisonment.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order and a costs order made by the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded on the leave motion.

In a high-net-worth family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in civil contempt for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent engaged in a deliberate and continuous course of conduct to delay disclosure, hide assets through corporate restructuring, and dissipate funds despite a non-dissipation order.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully and flagrantly breached the clear and unambiguous disclosure orders.

The respondent was found in contempt, with a sentencing hearing to be scheduled.

The applicant father brought a motion to gradually expand his parenting time with the parties' 8-month-old child and to transition the visits from the mother's verandah to his own residence.

The mother sought an adjournment, citing the father's failure to provide a criminal record check and her desire to forensically review video evidence of an alleged assault, which the court dismissed.

The court granted the father's motion for expanded parenting time, finding that it was in the child's best interests to foster a meaningful relationship with the father away from the parents' conflict, and that the mother's concerns regarding breastfeeding and the father's past substance abuse were sufficiently addressed.

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.

Following a motion for interim spousal support and disbursements, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought full-indemnity costs of $57,457.39, alleging bad faith by the respondent for failing to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent exhibited an element of bad faith regarding financial disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $46,000.

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.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements.

The parties were in a six-year marriage and the respondent husband is a high-income earner residing in Germany with significant wealth.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for high-income earners, imputing an annual investment income of over $4 million to the respondent based on a 12.3% rate of return.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump-sum of $326,315 in uncharacterized interim spousal support and $186,000 in interim disbursements, noting the latter had already been satisfied by a prior without-prejudice payment.

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.

Following a nine-week high-conflict parenting trial where the applicant father was wholly successful and the respondent mother was found in contempt and to have acted in bad faith, the court determined costs.

The father beat multiple offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs on a full recovery basis for the trial and contempt motion, and partial recovery for pre-trial steps, fixing the total costs at $677,610 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be set off against spousal support and equalization.

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 respondent father brought a motion to stay ten prior court orders dating back to 2013, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served in New York under the Hague Service Convention.

The court found that the Hague Service Convention applied, but that the respondent was properly served by FedEx as permitted by Ontario law and the Convention's postal channel provisions.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the respondent failed the RJR-MacDonald test and that staying the orders would cause immense prejudice to the applicant mother, who was owed over $2.5 million in support arrears.

The applicant brought a motion to strike several paragraphs of the respondent's Answer in a family law proceeding, arguing they were inflammatory, pleaded evidence, or relied on surreptitiously obtained communications.

The court struck certain paragraphs referencing a notorious murder and extra-marital affairs as inflammatory or a waste of time, but upheld paragraphs relating to family violence, objectification of women, and parenting capacity as relevant to custody.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim of intrusion upon seclusion regarding text messages synced to a family iPad, finding a low expectation of privacy.

The court also granted the applicant's request to anonymize the proceeding to protect the children.

In supplementary reasons following a trial, the court determined the quantum and duration of spousal support owed by the applicant to the respondent.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, factoring in imputed incomes for both parties and changing parenting arrangements over the years.

The applicant was ordered to pay $78,261 in retrospective spousal support and $6,053 monthly in prospective spousal support for an indefinite duration, subject to review.

The applicant was also ordered to maintain a $1,000,000 life insurance policy to secure his support obligations.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated July 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

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.