Donald J. Gordon

The applicant was successful on his motion to sever the divorce and sought costs.

The respondent agreed the applicant was entitled to costs, but disputed the quantum.

The court noted that delay in addressing corollary issues in a companion action unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the fixed amount of $1,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a prior endorsement directing the sale of the matrimonial home and addressing disclosure issues, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The applicant, having been more successful on the motions, sought $2,500 in costs payable from a joint account.

The respondent argued for no costs or costs in the cause.

The court awarded the applicant $2,500 in costs, finding the amount reasonable, but directed that it be paid from the net proceeds of the matrimonial home sale rather than the joint account due to outstanding disclosure.

In a supplemental endorsement following a trial decision where the plaintiff was awarded $35,000 for delayed diagnosis but failed on claims of informed consent and surgical negligence, the plaintiff's counsel requested an assessment of damages had all claims succeeded.

The court assessed the hypothetical damages at $100,000 for pain and suffering, $100,000 for past loss of income, and $125,000 for future loss of income, plus the Ministry of Health subrogated claim and prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff sought leave to further amend his statement of claim to include allegations of conspiracy against the police and Crown attorneys regarding his arrests during a native protest.

The defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred.

The court found that while the proposed amendments met the test for particularity, they attempted to resurrect previously struck allegations from December 2006 and were therefore statute-barred.

The court struck the conspiracy paragraphs without leave to amend, but allowed other unchallenged amendments.

Following a medical malpractice trial where the plaintiff was awarded $35,000 in damages for delayed diagnosis, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The parties agreed the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs for both the first and second trials.

The court noted the high cost of expert opinion evidence but declined to penalize the plaintiff for these expenses, particularly given the defendant's poor recordkeeping which complicated the case.

Costs were fixed at $210,000.

The appellant tenant appealed three Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that terminated his tenancy and dismissed his applications after he failed to attend the hearings.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he was unaware of the hearing date.

The Divisional Court found it unnecessary to decide the legal issues because the parties had entered into a new renewal of tenancy agreement, rendering the appeal of the eviction order moot.

The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, but the appellant was awarded $500 for out-of-pocket expenses.

The plaintiff, a 66-year-old labourer with over 12 years of service, was terminated purportedly for cause after being arrested for off-duty criminal charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to establish just cause, as the criminal charges were unrelated to the workplace, there was no evidence of reputational harm, and the allegations of dishonesty and cumulative discipline were unfounded.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' reasonable notice.

The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claims against the individual manager was granted, as the manager acted within the scope of his employment.

The moving party (respondent) sought summary judgment dismissing the responding party's (applicant's) family law claims for a declaration of a spousal relationship and constructive trust over a residential property.

The moving party had previously obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which found that the parties were in a landlord-tenant relationship, not a spousal one.

The responding party appealed the Board's decision to the Divisional Court but failed to perfect the appeal, resulting in its dismissal.

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment, finding that the family law claims were barred by the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, as the responding party was attempting to relitigate issues already decided by the Board.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of the former matrimonial home, while the respondent brought a cross-motion to transfer the proceeding to Simcoe County and for financial disclosure.

The court adjourned the transfer request as premature and ordered both parties to comply with prior disclosure consents.

Finding that the parties owned the home as tenants in common, the court granted the applicant's motion for sale, noting his prima facie right to partition or sale under the Partition Act and the absence of evidence showing malicious conduct or jeopardy to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act and a finding that she was incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment under the Health Care Consent Act.

The appellant argued both procedural and substantive errors, including alleged failures in timely delivery of statutory notices and errors in assessing the criteria for involuntary admission and treatment capacity.

The court applied the standards of correctness for legal questions and reasonableness for factual and mixed questions, emphasizing deference to the specialized tribunal.

The court held that the Board reasonably concluded the statutory criteria for involuntary admission were met due to the likelihood of serious bodily harm to others and that the appellant lacked capacity because she could not appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for documentary production from the plaintiff prior to scheduled examinations for discovery in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The plaintiff opposed the requests on the basis of relevance, overbreadth, and the deemed undertaking rule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the defendant failed to meet the threshold test of relevancy under Rule 31.06.

The court ordered all parties to serve sworn affidavits of documents prior to discovery.

Accused charged with cocaine trafficking offences sought a Rowbotham order staying proceedings pending state-funded counsel, arguing they lacked the financial means to retain counsel and required representation for a fair trial.

The court reviewed the established Rowbotham criteria requiring denial of legal aid, inability to afford counsel, and necessity of counsel for a fair trial.

The court found the first accused failed to provide credible or sufficient evidence of indigence and demonstrated access to significant income and discretionary spending inconsistent with financial hardship.

The second accused had been granted a legal aid certificate but sought funding for counsel of choice, which did not meet the Rowbotham threshold.

The court further held that the applicants failed to establish that the case involved sufficient complexity to require state-funded counsel.

The applicant mother sought to confirm a provisional order from Nova Scotia varying child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent father, residing in Ontario, opposed certain expenses and the retroactive award.

The court confirmed the prospective child support but varied the retroactive amount to reflect the father's actual income and voluntary payments.

The court rejected the claim for private school tuition as unaffordable given the parties' incomes, but confirmed other extracurricular expenses.

The father's claim of undue hardship regarding the retroactive award was dismissed.

Following a motion concerning the passing of accounts and issues arising from competing powers of attorney over an incapable person's finances, the court addressed costs.

The underlying dispute was characterized as a personal sibling conflict that unnecessarily escalated into litigation regarding the management of the incapable person's property and personal care.

The court declined to award costs to either of the feuding siblings, finding that neither should benefit from litigation driven by personal animosity rather than the incapable person's best interests.

However, the incapable person, represented by counsel appointed under s. 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act, was granted full indemnity costs.

Those costs were ordered payable equally by the two siblings personally.

Following an earlier decision dismissing the defendants’ motion to transfer the proceeding from Toronto to Simcoe, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought $13,054.92 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued that $4,000 would be appropriate.

The court held that although the defendants’ motion had some merit and was a close call, the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable costs for successfully opposing the motion, including travel time required due to the defendants’ choice of venue for the motion.

The court reduced the claimed preparation and research hours as excessive and fixed a reasonable partial indemnity award.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support and equalization of net family property, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered written submissions after its earlier decision and noted that the opposing party had been unreasonable during the litigation and had failed to provide full financial disclosure.

The court accepted counsel’s representation that not all time spent had been billed due to the client’s limited means.

Finding the requested amount reasonable in the circumstances, the court awarded costs in the amount sought.

The costs were ordered payable forthwith.

The defendant Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which sought $1.5 billion in damages for negligence, misfeasance in public office, breach of aboriginal rights, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The claims arose from the Crown's alleged forced incorporation of the plaintiffs' tobacco manufacturing partnership and its failure to enforce anti-contraband initiatives on the reserve.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claims would fail, given the evolving nature of aboriginal law and the specific interactions pleaded.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading to add all partners as plaintiffs and to provide further material facts for the aboriginal rights claim.

In a guardianship proceeding under the Substitute Decisions Act involving competing powers of attorney and a dispute between siblings, the applicant sought orders compelling the respondent attorney to pass accounts, appointing an interim guardian of property, and adjournment of the guardianship application pending the accounting.

The court held that the motion was premature because documentary disclosure remained outstanding and cross-examinations had not yet occurred.

While attorneys are fiduciaries required to maintain and provide accounts under s. 32 of the Substitute Decisions Act, the evidentiary record was incomplete and untested.

The court directed the parties to exchange financial records and proceed with cross-examinations before seeking further relief.

Following earlier reasons on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs arising from an application relating to enforcement of a prior family law judgment.

The successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after alleging the respondents engaged in unreasonable conduct that delayed the proceeding and increased litigation expense, including taking an improper position regarding a mortgage and causing unnecessary disclosure and cross‑examination motions.

The respondents filed no responding submissions on costs.

The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondents’ conduct.

Costs of $19,190.23 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.

Following a family law trial in which the applicant succeeded on spousal support and constructive trust claims, the court considered written submissions regarding costs.

Although the applicant sought full recovery costs, the court declined to grant them because the parties’ offers to settle were served only two days before trial and therefore did not comply with the timing requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court nonetheless considered the offers and the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to comply with prior cost orders and deliberate financial conduct affecting support obligations.

The court concluded that enhanced partial indemnity costs were appropriate given the applicant’s success and the respondent’s conduct during litigation.