Donald J. Gordon

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding an overpayment for artwork, the plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation to be reprehensible, obstructive, and untruthful, including failing to provide documentary disclosure and taking unnecessary steps to delay the proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs in the amount of $33,903.00.

The parties, who were never married, resolved their parenting issues prior to trial, agreeing to shared parenting.

The remaining issues at trial were child support, ownership of a vehicle, and the respondent's request for a restraining order.

The court dismissed the vehicle claim for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence of ongoing harassment or fear for safety.

On child support, the court found the applicant intentionally underemployed in his seasonal concrete business and imputed his income at $55,000.

Set-off child support was ordered based on the parties' respective incomes.

During final submissions in a family law trial, the respondent brought a motion to amend her answer to seek a higher imputed income for child support based on the applicant's undisclosed commission income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had substantial financial information months prior to trial but failed to seek an amendment in a timely manner.

Granting the amendment at this late stage would cause obvious disadvantage to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

This decision addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case stemming from a failed condominium project.

The plaintiffs, investors in a syndicated loan secured by a mortgage, sought judgment against the developer and its principal for their investment losses, relying on a contractual guarantee.

The defendants sought to dismiss the action, arguing the guarantee was not binding and the plaintiffs assumed investment risks.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the loan commitment, which included a guarantee from the developer and its principal, was incorporated into the trust agreement governing the syndicated loan.

The court emphasized the trustee's fiduciary duty to enforce the guarantee and allowed the beneficiaries (plaintiffs) to enforce it directly due to the trustee's failure to act.

The court also made adverse inferences against the defendants due to their litigation conduct, including refusal to answer questions and produce witnesses.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendant for unjust enrichment (overpayment of $50,000 for artwork), punitive damages, and a constructive trust over a property purchased by the defendant with the overpaid funds.

The defendant denied the claims and challenged the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant's evidence incredible and fabricated, and that he was unjustly enriched.

Punitive damages were awarded due to the defendant's deceitful conduct and obstruction.

A constructive trust was imposed on the property due to the tracing of funds and the defendant's unlikelihood of voluntary payment.

This decision concerns a motion for default judgment in a defamation action.

The plaintiff, Olivia Cyr, sought damages and injunctive relief against the defendant, Cassidy LeBlanc, for publishing defamatory statements on various websites.

The defendant was noted in default and failed to participate in the litigation.

The court found the statements to be clearly defamatory, causing significant harm to the plaintiff's reputation and well-being.

The court awarded general, punitive, and aggravated damages, along with a permanent injunction to prevent further publication.

Substantial indemnity costs were also awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn a pre-trial conference to allow for defence medical assessments.

The plaintiff had served new and supplementary medical reports late, making it difficult for the defendant to comply with the 90-day expert report deadline before the scheduled pre-trial.

The court granted the adjournment, emphasizing the importance of trial fairness and the defendant's right to adequately respond to the plaintiff's medical evidence, noting that the plaintiff's delay contributed to the need for the adjournment.

This divorce proceeding focused on decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the child, K.P.K., born in 2017, with property and support issues having been resolved.

The court granted joint decision-making for most areas, but awarded sole decision-making to the mother for health care, specifically regarding COVID-19 vaccination, after consultation with the father.

The existing parenting schedule, where the child primarily resides with the mother and spends regular time with the father, will continue.

However, an equal parenting time schedule will be implemented if the father relocates to the mother's community.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on the current schedule, which will terminate upon the implementation of the equal parenting schedule.

The defendants brought a motion on the eve of trial seeking an adjournment, leave to serve a late expert report, and leave to amend their Statement of Defence to add a counterclaim.

The underlying action involved allegations of environmental contamination flowing from the defendants' property to the plaintiff's property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the individual defendant, who had been self-represented for much of the litigation, had known about the issues for years but failed to act until the eve of trial.

The court held that granting the relief would cause significant delay and non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Tylor D'Aoust, sued his pharmacist and pharmacy for alleged negligence in failing to warn him about the side effects of prescribed medication (oxazepam) after a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff, who had a history of opioid addiction and mental health issues, claimed the lack of warning contributed to his impaired driving.

The court assessed the standard of care for a community-based pharmacist, the credibility of the witnesses, and the issue of causation.

The court found that the pharmacist met the professional standard of care by providing verbal counselling, including a warning about operating a motor vehicle, to the plaintiff's authorized agent (his mother).

The court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the oxazepam caused the accident, finding that the accident was not unavoidable and was not caused by the medication.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of a residential property, claimed damages against the defendant vendor for an alleged undisclosed latent defect (basement water leakage) and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court applied the doctrine of caveat emptor, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the defect was latent or that the defendant had knowledge of it, was reckless, or actively concealed it.

The court also found the plaintiffs' expert evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03.

The action was dismissed.

The respondent mother sought an order for costs against the applicant father for breaching a prior court order that mandated all communications between the parties be through counsel or a third party, limited to child-related issues, brief, informative, courteous, and free of derogatory comments.

The applicant sent numerous emails and text messages directly to the respondent and her counsel that were derogatory, offensive, and threatening.

The court found the applicant in clear breach of the communication terms, rejected his claims of frustration and misunderstanding, and awarded costs of $5,000 for the breach and $500 for the motion to the respondent.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $303,030.24 following a 49-day family law trial, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court noted the high-conflict nature of the litigation, the unconscionable seven-year delay, and the unreasonable conduct of both self-represented parties.

Although the applicant had greater success at trial, her costs claim included unrecoverable items such as mediation fees and business losses.

The court calculated initial costs at $113,300 but reduced the award to $50,000 due to the manner in which the litigation was conducted.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing his human rights complaint against his former employer, coworkers, and a workplace investigator.

The HRTO had dismissed the complaint against the employer and certain coworkers under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a concurrent civil action based on the same facts.

The HRTO also dismissed the complaint against the workplace investigator, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, following Vavilov, and found that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable and procedurally fair.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

In a high-conflict family law trial following an eight-year litigation history, the court determined parenting, support, and property issues for common-law spouses.

The mother, a veterinarian, was awarded sole decision-making and primary residence of the 10-year-old twins due to the parties' complete inability to communicate.

The court admitted the children's counselling records into evidence, finding the children had waived privilege and the statements met the principled exception to hearsay.

Income was imputed to both parties for child support purposes, and the father's spousal support claim was dismissed.

On property issues, the court applied unjust enrichment principles, awarding the father 30% of the value of the mother's veterinary practice and dividing the equity in the family residence based on its date-of-trial value.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Boswell J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a costs order of $12,482.49 made against it on a motion for state funding brought by the respondent mother.

The motion judge had found the Society acted unreasonably in opposing the motion and failing to accept an offer to settle.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the costs award, finding that while the Society did oppose the motion on the merits, taking a position on the merits of an appeal is consistent with its statutory mandate and does not amount to unreasonable conduct justifying a costs award against a child protection agency.

The applicant sought a declaration that his property's seasonal use as a "camping and recreational compound" with a travel trailer constituted a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The respondent, an adjacent landowner, counter-applied for a declaration that the use was not lawful.

The court found the relevant zoning by-law clear and unambiguous, permitting only "park" or "open pavilion" uses in the "Hazard Land Zone" thereby prohibiting the applicant's recreational vehicle use.

The applicant failed to establish a legal non-conforming use or that the municipality was estopped from enforcing the by-law due to "officially induced error" as the municipal officials who provided advice lacked the authority to bind the municipality on zoning matters.

The application was dismissed, and the counter-application was granted.