Donald J. Gordon

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application against the Federation of Law Societies of Canada.

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination after the National Committee on Accreditation required him to complete two years of in-class instruction because his foreign law degree was obtained through online self-study.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the mode of study policy was not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and applied to all students regardless of place of origin, age, or family status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to commence an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for a stay and for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and leave to appeal paragraph 3 of the order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal paragraphs 1 and 2 regarding whether the motions judge erred in deciding an evidentiary issue on a final basis.

Costs of $7,200 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) confirming the Ottawa Police Service's conclusion that his complaint against several officers was unsubstantiated.

The applicant had been arrested for animal cruelty after leaving his dog in a hot vehicle.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard and found that the OIPRD's decision was transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The court held that the investigating officers had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and exercised their discretion lawfully.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated June 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not provide costs submissions, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal, as well as leave to appeal an underlying order and costs order.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the HRTO breached procedural fairness by conducting a combined summary and preliminary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness as the HRTO has the power to control its own procedures and the applicant was afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The Court also upheld the HRTO's finding that the applicant's complaint did not raise Code violations, as she had been offered and refused a unit that accommodated her disability-related need for a balcony.

The court determined costs following a simplified proceeding trial where both the plaintiff's claim (adverse possession, prescriptive easement) and the defendants' counterclaim (injunction, trespass damages) were dismissed.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $172,028.97.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to divided success or the Rule 76.12.1(1) limit.

The court found the Rule 76.12.1(2) exception applied as the action commenced before January 1, 2020.

Considering mixed success, the defendants' more favourable offer to settle, and the principles of proportionality and cost minimization in simplified proceedings (Rule 76), the court awarded the defendants $75,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court considered costs submissions following a trial concerning a failed business venture.

Despite the plaintiffs' offers to settle and claims of the defendants' inappropriate conduct, and the defendants' counter-arguments, the court found that success was divided, or more accurately, a "divided failure." Given that litigation expenses approached $200,000 for each party while the amounts recovered were significantly less (within Small Claims Court jurisdiction for the plaintiffs), the court emphasized proportionality.

Ultimately, no costs were awarded to either party, as the litigation was not conducted in a reasonable manner and the conduct did not meet the threshold for elevated costs.

In a family trial concerning a four-year-old Indigenous child, the court determined primary residence and parenting time after the parties' equal shared schedule became unworkable because the child was starting school and the parents lived approximately three hours apart.

Applying the best interests framework under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, informed by the federal legislation respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court found both parents loving, capable, and supportive of the child's Indigenous heritage, culture, and language.

The court held that the child's primary residence should be with the applicant because her circumstances were presently more stable and provided a more straightforward routine for school, medical care, and daily activities, while preserving substantial parenting time for the respondent.

Joint decision making was continued, the respondent received expanded non-regular parenting time consistent with the maximum contact principle, and child support of $359.00 per month was ordered based on agreed incomes.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of residential property.

The defendants admitted liability, with the dispute centering on the assessment of damages and the plaintiffs' duty to mitigate.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs took reasonable steps to mitigate their loss by promptly re-listing and selling the property, and that the resale price was a valid measure of market value.

The court awarded damages for the difference between the original contract price and the resale price, plus approved ancillary expenses, crediting the deposit against the total judgment.

This case involved a dispute between two married couples, who were also siblings and their spouses, over the apportionment of substantial losses from a failed M&M Meat Shops franchise business.

The court was tasked with interpreting a "Letter of Understanding" (LOU) signed during mediation and its relationship to an earlier unanimous shareholders agreement.

The court found a material common or mutual mistake regarding the total corporate debt amount stated in the LOU, rendering the debt distribution terms of the LOU ineffective.

However, the LOU's provision for a $30,000 "sweat equity" payment to the defendants was upheld.

The remaining funds were ordered to be distributed based on the initial shareholders agreement's proportionate contribution terms, after correcting for disproportionate contributions and rejecting a minor claim for frozen food.

Timothy Clarke Anthony applied for bail review and detention review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace.

He faced multiple charges, including criminal negligence causing death and numerous counts of driving while disqualified, with a significant criminal record involving breaches of court orders.

The application argued errors in law by the Justice of the Peace, a material change in circumstances with a new release plan and sureties, and unreasonable delay.

The court found no errors in the original decision, determined the new release plan did not constitute a material change sufficient to mitigate the high risk of re-offending, and concluded that the delay was not unreasonable under the Jordan framework.

The application was dismissed, and detention was warranted due to the compelling risk of re-offending.

The parties separated in 2018 and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over parenting their six-year-old child.

The mother repeatedly made unilateral decisions, refused to participate in a Children's Lawyer investigation, and relocated with the child to Etobicoke shortly before trial in breach of a prior court order.

The court found the mother's conduct demonstrated a complete disregard for the child's right to a relationship with the father.

The father was awarded sole decision-making responsibility, except for religion, and the mother was ordered to return the child to the Region of Waterloo immediately.

An equal shared parenting schedule was ordered to commence once the mother returns to the region.

The mother brought a motion to set aside a temporary order granted in her absence, which had directed police enforcement of parenting time, prohibited her husband from attending exchanges, and requested an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The mother argued she received inadequate notice of the hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had adequate notice but failed to monitor her email, provided no explanation for a one-year delay in pursuing the motion, and presented no arguable defence on the merits to the original order.

The plaintiff sought an assessment of damages after the defendant was noted in default for failing to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff sustained serious physical and psychological injuries, including fractured ribs and a punctured lung, when she was thrown from a Jet Ski negligently operated by the defendant.

The court assessed non-pecuniary damages, pecuniary damages for personal care and future medical expenses, and a subrogated claim, awarding a total of $129,939.19 plus costs.

The parties sought costs following a family law trial regarding parenting and child support issues.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of nearly $170,000, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $2,500.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found that there was mixed success at trial.

The court also noted that both parties had conducted the litigation unreasonably, allowing personal conflict to dominate and incurring disproportionate legal expenses for relatively straightforward issues.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party, ordering each to bear their own costs.

Following a family law trial regarding child support, vehicle ownership, and a restraining order, the court addressed costs.

The court found that the trial was unnecessarily long and financially disastrous for both parties, given their modest financial circumstances and the proximity of their settlement offers.

Success on the child support issue was divided, but the applicant was entirely successful in dismissing the respondent's claims regarding the vehicle and restraining order.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs for those specific issues.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding a syndicated loan in a failed condominium project, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The court found that the defendants engaged in a litigation strategy of 'delay, deny and obstruct', including failing to disclose documents, refusing to answer questions, and delaying payment of a prior costs award.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixing the quantum at $61,000.18.