Donald J. Gordon

The defendant, Dr. Nicholas Peter Plaskos, moved for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice action, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs, Ms. Lewis and her sons, alleged delayed diagnosis due to a failure to order an MRI.

The court found that the plaintiffs' counsel did not exercise objective reasonable diligence in reviewing hospital records, leading to a delayed discovery of Dr. Plaskos's potential involvement.

Consequently, the claim against Dr. Plaskos was deemed statute-barred and dismissed.

This trial addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family properties, and occupation rent following a marital separation.

The court granted a divorce and ordered joint custody of the three children, with a week-about parenting schedule for the two younger children and Madison's schedule to be determined by her wishes.

The respondent was ordered to pay monthly child support and a lump sum spousal support of $9,000.

An equalization payment of $58,792.10 was ordered from the respondent to the applicant, along with a pension transfer.

The applicant's claim for occupation rent was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The maternal grandparents sought leave to be added as parties to a high-conflict family law proceeding between the applicant father and respondent mother, intending to claim access to their grandchildren.

The applicant father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the grandparents' presence would not assist in resolving the existing issues between the parents and that adding new parties and claims at this late stage would cause significant and undue delay, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court emphasized that adding parties is not intended for individuals to join existing litigation solely to advance their own claims.

This trial concerned the nature of a father's access to his 8-year-old daughter, sole custody with the maternal grandmother, and child support.

The father sought unsupervised access, while the grandmother requested continued supervised access at a centre.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test, found that the father, despite cognitive limitations, was capable of parenting in a secondary role with support.

The court ordered expanded access for the father, transitioning from supervised by his parents to monitored, with a future review for unsupervised overnight access.

Counselling for the child and parties was also ordered, and child support payments were adjusted and made retroactive.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal brought by the plaintiff.

The defendants, having been entirely successful, were presumptively entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the amounts claimed by the defendants' counsel to be excessive for a straightforward leave to appeal motion heard in writing, particularly the time allocated for legal research and drafting.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, setting a cap for fees on such motions, and awarded specific amounts to each defendant group.

The plaintiff brought a Rule 21 motion seeking a determination on the applicable prejudgment interest rate in a solicitor's negligence action, specifically whether the rate should be from the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) or the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to determine the issue on a motion, finding that a trial judge with a full evidentiary record would be in a better position to assess the relevant factors and avoid a potentially punitive outcome, leaving the interest rate dispute for trial.

The applicant, Georgios Lekkas, and the respondent, Helen Lekkas, each brought a motion to change a 2007 final consent order.

Mr. Lekkas sought to terminate child support obligations, arguing the children were adults and employed.

Ms. Lekkas sought child support, spousal support, payment of arrears for child support and s. 7 expenses, and a $2 million property settlement.

The court found that Ms. Lekkas failed to establish higher income or fraud by Mr. Lekkas.

Child support was terminated as of the children's college graduation dates.

Claims for support arrears and retroactive s. 7 expenses by Ms. Lekkas were dismissed, as arrears were paid and s. 7 claims were unsubstantiated and delayed.

The spousal support claim was dismissed due to no material change in circumstances and a prior Criminal Injuries Compensation Board decision rejecting Ms. Lekkas's claims of abuse-related disability.

The property claim was dismissed as it was statute-barred.

Mr. Lekkas's motion was granted, and Ms. Lekkas's motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to Mr. Lekkas.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the defendant's successful summary judgment motion.

The defendant sought a partial indemnity cost award of $21,500.

The plaintiff opposed, citing impecuniosity, an excessive claim, and the defendant's professional malpractice insurance.

The court dismissed the insurance argument and, while acknowledging the plaintiff's financial hardship, found the defendant's discounted cost claim reasonable.

A cost award of $18,000 was ordered, emphasizing the plaintiff's responsibility for failing to present evidence despite adjournments.

The applicant mother sought retrospective and prospective child support and section 7 expenses from the respondent father.

The court imputed income to the father due to problematic rental business accounting and delayed application for disability benefits.

The court ordered prospective guideline child support, a percentage of future section 7 expenses, and a lump sum for retrospective support and expenses, while deferring the determination of post-secondary expenses as premature.

The applicant, a second mortgagee, sought a determination of the date the respondent, the first mortgagee, became a mortgagee in possession.

The court examined the terms of a forbearance agreement between the first mortgagee and the mortgagor, along with the parties' conduct.

The court concluded that the first mortgagee took complete control of the property and the mortgagor's business operations through the forbearance agreement, thereby becoming a mortgagee in possession on the date the agreement was signed, rather than the later date of the mortgagor's bankruptcy.

This determination impacts the calculation of the mortgagor's indebtedness to the first mortgagee and the second mortgagee's interest in the property's sale proceeds.

The Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P.) brought a motion to amend a temporary parenting order, seeking to be relieved of their responsibility to apprehend and deliver a child under section 36 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

This responsibility was initially assigned due to a demonstrated conflict of interest within the Waterloo Regional Police Service (W.R.P.S.), where the respondent father was employed.

The court found that W.R.P.S. had failed to provide effective and independent police services for the family, particularly the child, due to the inherent conflict.

Emphasizing the best interests of the child and exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court dismissed the O.P.P.'s motion, maintaining their role in enforcement to ensure independent policing.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement on costs following a decision where it dismissed the applicant's motion and application, finding that an Indian court had sole jurisdiction over the custody case.

The respondent, Hiral Gandhi, sought a cost award of $15,000, while the applicant, Vaibhav Mehta, argued for each party to bear their own costs.

The court found that the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party and that her conduct was not unreasonable, distinguishing the case from precedents where costs were denied due to a party's unreasonable actions.

A cost award of $15,000 in favour of the respondent was deemed fair and reasonable.

The applicant sought temporary orders for child and spousal support, sale of a cottage property, and interim disbursements.

The respondent failed to provide full financial disclosure despite previous agreements and court orders.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on adverse inferences drawn from his non-disclosure and the applicant's expert's preliminary report.

The court granted temporary orders for child and spousal support, ordered the sale of the cottage, and awarded interim disbursements to the applicant to level the playing field.

The applicant father sought custody of his son and an order for the respondent mother to return the child to Ontario.

The threshold issue was jurisdiction, specifically whether Ontario or India had habitual residence over the child.

The court found that the mother's decision to remain in India with the child, coupled with the father's acquiescence or undue delay in challenging this decision, established India as the child's habitual residence.

Consequently, the Ontario court declined jurisdiction, dismissing the father's motion and application.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought to bifurcate the case so that the validity of two marriage contracts would be tried first before addressing spousal support and equalization claims.

The respondent opposed bifurcation and sought interim expenses of $100,000 to fund the litigation.

Applying Rule 12(5) of the Family Law Rules and relevant jurisprudence, the court held that the validity of the marriage contracts was a threshold issue and that splitting the case would likely shorten the litigation, reduce expense, and promote settlement.

The court found no prejudice to the respondent and ordered a first trial limited to the validity of the marriage contracts.

The respondent’s motion for further interim expenses was dismissed because a prior award remained sufficient to fund the initial trial stage.

A roofing contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment of holdback funds and alleged extras following completion of a roofing installation project.

The property owner asserted a set‑off for the contractor’s failure to provide the expected system warranty and disputed responsibility for additional invoices.

The court interpreted the contract to require a system warranty covering labour and materials, not merely a material warranty, and held the owner was entitled to compensation for the missing warranty though less than claimed.

The contractor was also found responsible for damage caused by improper installation practices that allowed rainwater to enter through unsealed screw holes during construction.

Judgment was granted in a reduced amount reflecting the set‑off and limited entitlement to extras.

Following a high‑conflict family law proceeding, the court determined issues of access, spousal support, and equalization of net family property after the parties’ separation and litigation history involving multiple interim orders.

The respondent, who suffered from significant mental health issues and was residing in a psychiatric facility, sought spousal support and contact with the children.

The court held that access was not in the children’s best interests given the history of trauma and lack of contact for several years.

The court also rejected the respondent’s spousal support claim, finding no demonstrated need and no ability to pay given the applicant’s financial obligations for the children.

Equalization was calculated and offset against an existing costs award.

Following a prior summary judgment awarding the plaintiff approximately $994,728.92 on a guarantee claim, the court addressed the appropriate quantum of costs.

The successful party sought $32,500 in partial indemnity costs, while the responding parties argued for $20,000 and challenged docketed hours, hourly rate, and the use of senior counsel rather than junior counsel.

The court held that costs are determined based on what is fair and reasonable rather than through strict percentage formulas and found the docketed hours reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that work should have been delegated to junior counsel, noting that the experience of senior counsel may reduce total time required.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

In a motor vehicle collision action involving a police officer driver, co-defendants sought an order compelling a police officer witness to re-attend for cross-examination and to answer previously refused questions regarding internal police review reports assessing fault and potential charges.

The dispute concerned whether undisclosed internal police “tracking reports” prepared by senior officers reviewing the collision investigation were relevant and producible under Rule 30.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that relevance in discovery is broadly construed and that the senior officers’ assessments of fault formed part of the investigative process relating directly to the issue of liability.

The fact that the officer involved was not charged did not render the internal reports irrelevant.

The motion was granted and the police defendants were ordered to disclose the tracking report and permit further cross‑examination.

The plaintiff brought an action in slander against the defendant for making defamatory allegations to the plaintiff’s employer that implied criminal conduct and professional misconduct.

The defendant failed to file a defence and was noted in default, and the matter proceeded to trial solely for the assessment of damages.

The court held that the defamatory statements alleged criminal activity and were communicated directly to the plaintiff’s employer, affecting professional reputation.

Applying established defamation damages factors and noting the defendant’s malice and refusal to retract the statements, the court awarded general damages.

Judgment was granted for $10,000 in damages and $750 in costs.