Gary Joseph

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 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 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.

The applicant mother sought to relocate the children's residence to Texas.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing that the parties' separation agreement strictly prohibited relocation for seven years.

The court interpreted the separation agreement and found it permitted relocation with consent or a court order, meaning there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion but stayed the application, ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the separation agreement.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's award that determined it was not in the best interests of the parties' two children to be vaccinated.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator erred in his gatekeeping function by qualifying the respondent's experts, whose evidence on vaccine safety was unreliable and outside their expertise.

The arbitrator also erred by failing to admit government immunization guides under the public documents exception to the hearsay rule.

Having excluded the respondent's expert evidence and admitted the public documents and fresh expert evidence, the court found that the children's best interests required vaccination.

The appellant was granted sole decision-making responsibility for the children's vaccinations, and the respondent was ordered not to tell the children that vaccines are unsafe.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order allowing the parties' three children to travel to Texas for her parenting time during the Christmas holidays.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing a recent consent order precluding international travel without a quarantine exemption, and the health risks and school disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order was determinative and that, in any event, the proposed travel and subsequent quarantine were not in the children's best interests.

The moving party (respondent mother) brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge from hearing an appeal regarding the vaccination of the parties' children.

The moving party argued that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed based on the judge's prior preliminary rulings in the case, decisions in unrelated family law cases involving public health guidelines, and media coverage of those decisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prior decisions were based on existing law and did not demonstrate that the judge had entered the fray or predetermined the issues.

The court also held that a reasonable person would not rely on provocative media articles to conclude the judge could not decide the appeal fairly.

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 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 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 technically successful on the motion, the court found that the respondent's conduct, including withholding critical information about an income analysis and making an unreasonable offer to settle, tempered the presumption of costs in his favour.

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

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 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.

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.

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 appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent a 45% interest in a commercial property via constructive trust, retroactive spousal support, and prejudgment interest on an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the limitation period for the unjust enrichment claim was tolled due to the appellant's fraudulent concealment of the property's true ownership.

The court also upheld the awards for retroactive spousal support and prejudgment interest, noting the appellant's history of non-disclosure and failure to pay adequate support.

The husband appealed the trial judge's equalization payment and spousal support orders, arguing errors in determining the matrimonial home, denying a tax liability deduction, and calculating support.

The wife cross-appealed the denial of pre-judgment interest, indexing, security for support, and compensatory support, as well as the treatment of mortgage payments on excluded property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion, though it amended a review clause on consent.