Gary Stuart Joseph

This case involved a bifurcated, high-conflict six-day trial concerning the custody and access of three children.

The applicant mother and respondent father each claimed custody, with the children having resided with the mother since separation in 2012.

The primary dispute revolved around the re-establishment of the children's relationship with the father, with the mother proposing preconditions for reunification therapy (e.g., father undertaking anger management) and the father advocating for unconditional reunification therapy, aligning with the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered reunification therapy for the two younger children, rejecting the mother's preconditions and establishing a detailed framework for the therapy process, including therapist selection, shared payment, and the therapist's authority over access timelines.

The children were to continue residing with the mother, and no immediate access order was made, pending the therapist's recommendations.

The Father (Applicant) was awarded full recovery costs of $249,765.47 against the Mother (Respondent) following a 12-day trial.

The court found the Mother's conduct throughout the litigation to be unreasonable and in bad faith, characterized by false allegations of domestic violence, obstruction of access, misleading evidence, and repeated changes of counsel causing delay.

The Father had also exceeded all his offers to settle, which were reasonable and severable, unlike the Mother's non-severable and less favourable offers.

The costs award was justified on the bases of bad faith, unreasonable conduct, and the Father beating his Rule 18 offers to settle, serving to indemnify the successful litigant, encourage settlement, and sanction inappropriate behaviour.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and attempted choking.

The trial focused on the reliability of the complainant's identification evidence and the photo lineup procedure.

The complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies regarding the attacker's physical description, clothing, and details of the assault.

Although a photo lineup identified the accused, it was not conducted strictly according to police procedure.

The court found that despite the photo lineup and the accused's address matching the assault location, the cumulative frailties in the complainant's identification evidence created a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on both counts.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting schedule for the parties' child, following the release of a Section 30 assessment report.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule or implement Phase 1 of the assessor's recommendations.

The court found compelling reasons to change the temporary order, noting the high conflict between the parties and the stress caused by transitions.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule and set out detailed terms for transitions, communication, and holidays.

The applicant sought costs following a motion for interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

Although the respondent was successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 in favour of the applicant.

The plaintiff, Devlan Construction Ltd., sought costs after successfully obtaining summary judgment against the defendant, 2345171 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Guelph Medical Imaging, for $105,599.74.

Devlan requested costs of $61,158.24 on a substantial indemnity basis or $50,965.19 on a partial indemnity scale.

Guelph Imaging proposed fixed costs of $30,000.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, counsel experience, expected costs, amount claimed/recovered, complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court found that Guelph Imaging's arguments, though eventually withdrawn, required Devlan to provide detailed accounting.

The court fixed costs at $60,000.00 in favour of Devlan Construction Ltd.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the child and permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to Ottawa to live with her new husband, a diplomat.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought joint custody with parallel parenting arrangements.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and permitted the relocation to Ottawa, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver since the child's birth and that the proposed move was in the child's best interests.

The court established a detailed access schedule for the father including alternate weekends and extended holiday access, and ordered child support and section 7 expense contributions.

This motion concerned interim spousal and child support and interim disbursements.

The parties resolved the interim disbursements issue by agreeing to a line of credit on their jointly owned home for the applicant's litigation costs.

The primary dispute revolved around the imputation of the respondent's income for support calculations.

The applicant sought support based on an imputed income of $350,000, while the respondent proposed $120,000.

The court imputed an income of $120,000 to the respondent, finding the applicant's higher figure speculative and not sufficiently grounded in evidence.

Temporary child and spousal support orders were made based on this imputed income, with the respondent also ordered to continue paying various third-party expenses for the home and the applicant's car.

No income was imputed to the applicant at this stage.

The appellant sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a costs order in a family law matter.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and determining that the trial judge had properly applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the trial judge's findings of bad faith against the appellant were fully supported by the record and that the costs order was justified under the mandatory language of Rule 24(8).

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and access of their 4-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and made allegations of domestic violence against the father, which she used to restrict his access.

The court found the mother's allegations to be false and that she had actually assaulted the father.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to grant the father sole custody with a 50/50 shared parenting schedule, as he was the only parent willing to foster the child's relationship with the other parent.

The court also resolved financial issues, dismissing the mother's claim for spousal support, ordering her to pay equalization and occupation rent, and setting child support based on a set-off approach.

This divorce proceeding addressed the applicant wife's claims for ongoing and retroactive spousal and child support, and a post-separation accounting, as well as the respondent husband's request for termination or reduction of spousal support and credit for overpayments.

The court granted the divorce, imputed income to both parties, and ordered the husband to pay ongoing spousal support of $6,500 per month, a reduction from the temporary order of $8,500.

All claims for retroactive spousal and child support by both parties were dismissed.

The wife's claims against the added respondent (husband's common-law partner) were also dismissed.

The husband was ordered to maintain health insurance for the wife and designate her as an irrevocable beneficiary on a life insurance policy.

The parties, both physicians, engaged in highly conflicted litigation over child and spousal support following their divorce.

The father brought a motion to change child support as the children commenced university, and the mother sought to increase spousal support and impute significant unreported cash income to the father.

The court rejected the mother's expert evidence on imputing income due to bias and errors, preferring the father's expert.

The court established a framework for child support while the children attend university, ordered the father to pay minor arrears for table and s. 7 expenses, and dismissed the mother's claim for increased spousal support, finding no material change in circumstances.

This family law appeal concerns the variation and termination of spousal support following a 2008 consent order.

The respondent sought to reduce spousal support from $3,000 to $1,000 per month effective June 2013 and terminate it one year later, claiming material changes in both parties' financial circumstances.

The trial judge found material changes in both parties' circumstances and imputed income to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while there was a material change in the appellant's financial circumstances, there was no material change in the respondent's circumstances as his income remained consistent.

The court also found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the matrimonial home, determining that the parties' true bargain was reflected in a secret trust agreement rather than the consent order.

The court reduced spousal support but declined to terminate it, consistent with the parties' original agreement.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment regarding the valuation date, and the Respondent brought a motion for disclosure and a valuation report at her valuation date.

The court adjourned the Applicant's cross-motion due to insufficient notice and the need for a full day hearing, and also adjourned the Respondent's disclosure motion until after the valuation date issue is determined.

The Applicant was ordered to pay costs for the adjournment.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his second motion to change child and spousal support and granting the respondent's cross-motion.

The appellant had failed to produce required financial disclosure, including income tax returns, despite multiple court orders over two years.

The motion judge dismissed the motion based on this failure to disclose.

The appellant sought to introduce his 2015 and 2016 tax returns as fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal declined to admit the fresh evidence and upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the appellant had not met the test for introducing fresh evidence and had failed in his fundamental duty to disclose financial information.

The court rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments, noting he had benefitted from judicial indulgences rather than suffered unfairness.

The appellant appealed from trial decisions determining unresolved issues in a family law matter, including spousal support duration and quantum, child and spousal support arrears, equalization of post-valuation-day increases in corporate shares, disposition of a recreational property, and costs.

The trial judge determined the appellant's income for support purposes by excluding losses from a corporation used to fund his personal lifestyle, assessed the value of corporate shares considering personal benefits provided by the corporation, ordered payment for a recreational property, and awarded substantial costs to the respondent based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct and inadequate disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld all findings.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

Prior to marriage, they signed a contract excluding the applicant's significant corporate assets from net family property but requiring him to pay child support for the respondent's two children from a previous relationship.

The applicant sought to set aside the child support provision, arguing he no longer stood in the place of a parent.

The court upheld the marriage contract, finding the applicant stood in loco parentis and that setting aside the provision would be unconscionable.

The court determined the applicant's income based on his spending habits rather than corporate profits, ordering child support for all three children and spousal support for five years.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on a motion to extend time to perfect an appeal.

The fresh evidence demonstrated that counsel's inadvertence had prevented important evidence from being presented to the motion judge regarding the test for extending time to perfect the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the interests of justice required admission of the fresh evidence and that it called into serious question the motion judge's conclusions on the merits, particularly regarding whether a reasonable explanation for the appellant's delay existed.

The Court set aside the motion judge's order dismissing the appeal for delay and extended the time to perfect the appeal to February 16, 2018.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for enforcement of a separation agreement, damages, and relief related to foreign divorce proceedings, as well as a motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding the property transfer, finding genuine issues for trial concerning the alleged breach and limitation periods.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims related to the Ukrainian divorce proceedings, as they fell outside Ontario's jurisdiction and disclosed no known cause of action.

The motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant was also dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting his 18-year-old daughter child support and university expenses.

The daughter had withdrawn from parental control, and the central issue was whether this withdrawal was involuntary under s. 31(2) of the Family Law Act.

The appeal judge found that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment because there were significant facts in dispute regarding the voluntariness of the withdrawal that required a trial.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The interim support order was varied to account for financial contributions made by the mother.