Gary Stuart Joseph

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.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary orders in a high-net-worth family law proceeding.

The parties separated after a traditional marriage where the applicant was the primary caregiver and the respondent was an entrepreneur with complex, international business interests.

The respondent failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure, claiming his finances were complex and he had lost everything, despite evidence of lavish spending.

The court ordered the respondent to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and serve expert valuation reports within 20 days.

The court also appointed an independent supervising solicitor to review quarantined documents found in the matrimonial home for relevance and privilege.

Given the respondent's lack of disclosure and unilateral financial actions, the court granted a preservation order restraining him from depleting his assets, subject to ordinary business exceptions.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children, noting the respondent's frequent travel and lack of day-to-day involvement.

Finally, the court imputed an income of $1,200,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum of $1,700,000 for interim child and spousal support, citing the real risk of non-payment of periodic support.

The respondent brought a motion for the release of the net proceeds of sale of two jointly owned properties.

The applicant opposed the full release, seeking to have a portion held in trust to secure her equalization claim, and brought a cross-motion for the partition and sale of a third property.

The court ordered a partial release of the proceeds, holding $778,000 in trust to secure the applicant's equalization claim, finding she had established a strong claim and a risk of dissipation.

The court also granted the cross-motion for the partition and sale of the third property, finding no compelling reason to delay the sale until trial.

The mother appealed a temporary order granting the father decision-making authority over whether their 10-year-old child should receive routine childhood vaccinations.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by changing the status quo before trial, taking judicial notice of vaccine safety, and relying on unsworn letters from physicians.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the best interests of the child test, properly took judicial notice of adjudicative and legislative facts regarding vaccine safety, and made no reversible error in admitting the medical evidence or deciding the motion without the child's views and preferences.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making and parenting time for their seven-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and the continuation of a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making, a reduction in the father's parenting time, and a change to the child's surname.

The court found that neither parent should have sole decision-making due to the risk of marginalizing the other, and instead ordered a parallel parenting regime with divided domains of authority.

The court maintained the 2/2/3 schedule to provide stability and dismissed the mother's request to change the child's surname.

The applicant father sought a transfer of primary care and decision-making responsibility for the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had engaged in a severe and prolonged campaign of parental alienation, including making multiple false allegations of physical and sexual abuse to the police and children's aid societies, and sabotaging court-ordered reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's conduct caused significant emotional harm to the children and that she was incapable of supporting their relationship with the father.

The court transferred primary care and decision-making to the father, ordered a 90-day period of no contact for the mother (save for supervised therapeutic time), and found the mother in contempt of a previous access order.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

This family appeal concerned a father's attempt to reduce child and spousal support after losing his employment and operating income through corporations he controlled.

He argued there had been a material change in circumstances, that the court should rely on his personal income rather than corporate pre-tax income, and that spousal support should end.

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, holding that he had not shown a material decrease in income, that it was proper to impute corporate income and average income over three years, and that the step-down spousal support order was appropriate.

The court also upheld deciding the motion on affidavit evidence and awarded costs to the mother.

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.

Following the dismissal of the mother's appeal from two family law arbitration awards, the father sought full recovery of costs totaling $99,284.63 based on offers to settle.

The mother argued for no costs or costs fixed at $20,000.

The court found the father was presumptively entitled to full recovery of costs from the date of his first offer to settle, which was as favourable as the outcome of the appeal.

After considering the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and noting discrepancies in the hours docketed by both sides, the court fixed the father's costs at $70,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

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 offender, an 18-year-old male, threw a heavy trailer hitch from a moving vehicle, striking an Indigenous woman and hastening her death.

He pleaded guilty to the underlying act and was convicted of manslaughter.

The Crown sought 8 to 12 years, arguing high moral culpability and bias against sex workers.

The defence sought 4 years, citing youth, lack of record, and remorse.

The court found the attack was unprovoked, gratuitous, and motivated by bias against women (specifically sex workers).

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in penitentiary, less 1 month for pre-sentence custody, plus ancillary orders.

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.

The applicant brought an interim motion for child and spousal support.

Both parties were self-employed.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $100,000 based on her consulting contract.

For the respondent, who owned a holding company with a 50% interest in a dental distribution business, the court applied section 18 of the Child Support Guidelines to attribute pre-tax corporate income to him.

The court found the respondent had effective control over dividend declarations and there was no business reason for retaining the earnings.

The respondent's income was determined to be $820,000.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $16,000 per month and child support of $10,000 per month.

The mother appealed two arbitration awards that granted the father equal parenting time and ordered her to pay $25,000 in costs.

She argued the arbitrator erred in applying the best interests of the child test, changing the parenting schedule without expert evidence, and assuming equal time would reduce conflict.

The mother also sought to introduce fresh evidence, including an affidavit from a former therapist.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the arbitrator's decisions.

The court also rejected most of the fresh evidence, noting the therapist did not qualify as a participant expert and the evidence did not meet the Palmer test.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court found the applicant was largely successful and that her offers to settle were as or more favourable than the final order on most issues.

The court also found the respondent engaged in bad faith by unilaterally withdrawing funds from a joint account and unnecessarily seizing a vehicle from the parties' daughter.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs, with $15,000 payable forthwith and $10,000 to be set off against any future equalization payment owed by the applicant.

Following a motion and cross-motion with divided success, the applicant sought costs of $25,000.

The respondent argued for no costs or costs reserved, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was presumed entitled to costs as the respondent's motion was dismissed and the applicant achieved some success.

The court fixed costs at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the respondent within 120 days due to his limited means.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, both retroactive and ongoing, for herself and the three children of the marriage.

The court determined the respondent husband's income for support purposes to be $400,000, higher than his claimed income.

The court ordered temporary child support for two children (Maggie and William) and temporary spousal support, with adjustments for when the children attend university away from home.

The wife's claim for retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at this stage, recognizing her efforts towards self-sufficiency.