Gary Stuart Joseph

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to travel with the parties' three children to Texas for her summer parenting time, despite a separation agreement requiring the children's residence to remain in Toronto.

The respondent father opposed the motion due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the closure of the Canada-US border, and concerns that the mother intended to permanently relocate the children to Texas.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that non-essential travel to a COVID-19 hotspot would recklessly expose the children to risk and was not in their best interests.

The court ordered that the children remain in Canada and adopted the father's proposed summer schedule.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary parenting order for her two young children, requesting primary care and specific access for the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, raising concerns about the Applicant's mental health and parenting ability, initially seeking limited/supervised access, and later proposing a 50/50 schedule.

The court found the Respondent's credibility deeply flawed due to inconsistencies and strategic use of criminal charges.

The court granted the Applicant's request, returning the children to her primary care, citing the children's best interests, the pre-separation status quo, and the Respondent's failure to prioritize the children's needs post-separation.

The Applicant's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed without prejudice.

The respondent sought an urgent hearing for his long motion to set aside ten prior court orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.

He claimed urgency due to his precarious immigration status, inability to work, frozen bank accounts, revoked Canadian passport by FRO, and expiring health insurance amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by pre-existing medical conditions.

The applicant opposed the urgency request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for an urgent hearing, finding his urgent situation largely self-made due to his own delays, non-compliance with previous court orders, and failure to seek appropriate relief or return to Canada when able.

The court also noted the potential issue of attornment to jurisdiction.

This decision addresses a motion for leave to intervene brought by the Medical Officer of Health (City of Toronto) (MOH) in an appeal concerning the vaccination of children.

The appellant sought to overturn an arbitrator's decision that declined to order the children's vaccination, while the respondent opposed vaccination.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the intervention motion remotely and in writing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the test for intervention, the court found that the MOH had a substantial public interest in the issues of vaccine efficacy, expert evidence gatekeeping, and judicial notice of public health policy.

The MOH's distinct public health perspective was deemed a useful contribution without causing injustice to the parties.

Leave to intervene was granted.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to resume his in-person parenting time, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended due to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and their child's asthma.

The court found the motion urgent and held that the pandemic alone is not a reason to suspend access where appropriate precautions are taken.

Finding no evidence that the children's safety would be compromised, the court ordered the immediate resumption of the applicant's in-person parenting time in accordance with existing orders.

The applicant father sought shared parenting time with his four-year-old daughter after separating from the respondent mother.

The mother resisted, citing concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and proposing a phased-in contact schedule with initial visits in the matrimonial home and a 14-day self-isolation period for the father.

The court granted the applicant's request for a shared and equal parenting plan, finding the mother's COVID-19 concerns unsubstantiated and not in the child's best interests, especially given her own conduct regarding safety protocols.

The court also waived the case conference requirement due to the urgency of establishing in-person parenting time.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The respondent sought to include a $500,000 settlement payment the applicant made to his first wife as a date-of-marriage liability or as grounds for an unequal division of property; the court dismissed both arguments.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the respondent intentionally underemployed.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment and a lump sum for spousal support based on the high end of the SSAG for an eight-year duration, less credits for post-separation overpayments.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown alleged a strong circumstantial case involving a fatal stabbing related to the drug trade.

The court found that the accused met his onus under the primary and secondary grounds due to his lack of a criminal record and the strength of the proposed sureties.

On the tertiary ground, the court balanced the gravity of the offence against the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the strict release plan, concluding that a reasonable person would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the accused were released.

The application was granted, and the accused was released on strict conditions, including house arrest and significant financial pledges from his sureties.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an updated section 30 parenting assessment prior to trial.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the conflict between the parties had not changed and that the assessor could provide updated opinions via oral evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant change in circumstances to justify a further intrusive assessment and noting that the trial judge could adequately determine the issues with the original report and viva voce evidence.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding father.

On appeal from trial judge Sutherland's orders regarding spousal support and property division in a separation agreement dispute.

The trial judge found no basis to set aside the separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act but applied the Miglin test under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act to award modest lump sum spousal support of $143,933 despite a spousal support waiver in the agreement.

The trial judge concluded the waiver did not substantially comply with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The father appealed seeking to set aside the property provisions; the mother cross-appealed seeking to uphold the agreement in its entirety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's application of the law to the facts.

An appeal from a Superior Court order concerning spousal support, child support, and a fraudulent conveyance application.

The appeal raised three issues: whether the motion judge erred in varying spousal support, varying child support, and dismissing the fraudulent conveyance application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, dismissed the appeal regarding spousal support, and dismissed the fraudulent conveyance appeal.

The court allocated costs among the three issues and offset costs between the parties.

Appeal from a motion judge's order varying child and spousal support orders from a 1999 judgment.

The respondent sought to vary support based on changed circumstances, including health issues and reduced income.

The motion judge terminated spousal support as of December 31, 2002, based on the appellant's material change in circumstances (employment and remarriage), and reduced child support from 2004 onwards due to the respondent's declining income.

The appellant appealed the variation of support orders and the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance application.

The respondent cross-appealed the refusal to award costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, dismissed the appeals regarding spousal support and fraudulent conveyances, and dismissed the cross-appeal on costs.

This appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute over the equalization of net family property and a costs award.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's treatment of promissory notes (debts owed by the appellant to his corporations) in calculating net family property under a marriage contract that excluded corporate assets.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal a substantial costs award of $490,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision on both issues, finding no error in including the promissory notes as personal debts not excluded by the marriage contract, and finding the costs award was justified given the appellant's unreasonable litigation tactics.

Appeal of a motion judge's order terminating indefinite spousal support after 22 years.

The respondent sought termination in anticipation of retirement, while the appellant sought an increase to $15,000 per month.

The motion judge found a material change in circumstances based on the appellant's failure to return to the workforce despite having marketable skills and professional qualifications.

The motion judge terminated support effective October 5, 2016, and awarded costs of $50,000 against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the termination, finding no error in principle and dismissing all grounds of appeal.

The mother appealed a trial decision ordering joint custody, imputing the father's income for child support, and awarding costs to the father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the joint custody order was a necessary and appropriate response to the mother's severe gatekeeping behaviour, which included unilateral decision-making and false allegations.

The court also upheld the trial judge's imputation of the father's income based on the available evidence, noting that neither party had provided a professional valuation at trial.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The moving party (father) sought costs of $669,000 following a successful motion to change child and spousal support.

The responding party (mother) had unsuccessfully sought to reopen numerous issues from a prior trial, alleging the moving party had significant unreported cash income.

The court found the responding party acted unreasonably, though not in bad faith, and that the moving party's offer to settle met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the moving party $500,000 in costs, declining to order full recovery or to make the costs enforceable as support.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of an order varying an interim parenting schedule pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The motion judge had varied the schedule to increase the father's parenting time based on observations from a Section 30 assessment report.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the mother failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was well-founded and did not conflict with established case law.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured the new schedule.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the residential schedule of the parties' daughter and sought costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

While the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs due to his success and beating his offer to settle, the court found that both parties had engaged in blameworthy conduct that escalated the conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

Consequently, the court reduced the applicant's cost recovery and awarded him $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought an order permitting him to apply for and renew Canadian passports for the parties' two children without the respondent's consent.

The parties had divorced in Bahrain, and custody orders were in place from Bahrain and Qatar, where the applicant and children resided.

The Ontario court recognized the foreign divorce but found it lacked jurisdiction over custody ancillary to divorce under the Divorce Act.

However, the court assumed jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, as the Qatari court declined to address Canadian passport issues.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to grant the order, citing their inability to travel, potential loss of health and education benefits, and the unreasonableness of the respondent's refusal.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking a restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and its immediate partition and sale.

The respondent husband consented to exclusive possession but opposed the remaining relief.

The court found no urgency to justify hearing the motion for a restraining order before a case conference.

However, the court held that it was in the interests of justice to order the immediate partition and sale of the home, as the wife had a prima facie right to it, the husband had previously requested the same relief in his pleadings, and delaying the inevitable order would only increase costs and waste judicial resources.