Donald J. Gordon

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant father sought sole custody of their two children, while the respondent mother sought custody and unsupervised access.

The court found that the mother had exhibited concerning behaviour and communications suggesting potential mental health issues, and had failed to comply with previous court orders regarding access.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, ordered the mother's access to remain supervised, and directed the mother to undergo a psychiatric assessment.

The father was ordered to pay time-limited spousal support, and the mother was ordered to pay child support.

Following a family law trial involving parenting, child support, spousal support, and property equalization, the court determined costs.

The respondent achieved greater success at trial than the self-represented applicant.

The court noted the trial was unnecessary and both parties bore responsibility for delays and failing to resolve issues.

Costs were awarded to the respondent, limited to trial preparation and attendance, fixed at $12,750 on a reduced partial indemnity basis.

The father appealed the dismissal of his contempt and summary judgment motions by a lower court.

The motions judge had found the mother was no longer in contempt after relocating the children back to the agreed-upon area and that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the mother's motion to change the parenting order (mobility issue).

The appellate court dismissed the father's appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's application of family law principles.

The court affirmed that the primary purpose of contempt (ensuring compliance) had been achieved and that the mother's motion to change, involving a mobility issue, should be heard on its merits, requiring a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests.

The biological mother brought a motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent her two biological children in her underlying application to set aside an adoption order.

The underlying application was based on the reliance on flawed Motherisk drug testing reports in the original Crown wardship proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society and the adoptive parents opposed the motion as premature.

The court granted the motion, finding that the children's rights to participate and be heard were paramount, and appointed the Children's Lawyer pursuant to section 89(3.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

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 plaintiff moved for summary judgment for unpaid invoices for software development services.

The defendant requested an adjournment to pursue mediation pursuant to a dispute resolution clause in their agreement.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the defendant failed to identify any specific dispute to mediate and presented no evidence to challenge the plaintiff's claim.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $568,190.48 USD plus 18% interest.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict custody and access dispute over their five-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody and decision-making, while the father sought expanded access and parallel parenting.

Following a 44-day trial and a section 30 assessment, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, but significantly expanded the father's parenting time to include phased-in overnight visits.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime for decision-making, granting the mother authority over education and routine medical care, and the father authority over routine dental care and final decision-making for major medical and dental issues.

Following a successful trial regarding resulting trust and unjust enrichment of a family residence, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had delivered an offer to settle that triggered the cost consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the applicant the full requested amount of $36,556.92, finding the time spent reasonable and noting no reason to discount the fees.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $41,900, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $47,711.63, while the defendant suggested partial indemnity costs of up to $25,181.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $30,434.14, noting that neither party's offer to settle triggered Rule 49 consequences.

The court reduced the plaintiff's costs due to a non-compliant expert report under Rule 53 and the failure to disclose acceptance of the defendant's expert quantification prior to trial.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior vice-president with 37 years of service, was terminated without cause.

On a motion for partial summary judgment, the court awarded a 30-month notice period, finding exceptional circumstances due to his age, tenure, and lack of comparable employment opportunities.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to full bonus payments under the company's Long Term and Short Term Incentive Plans during the notice period, as the forfeiture clauses were not properly communicated, were ambiguous, and violated the Employment Standards Act.

The plaintiff sold its landscaping business assets to the defendant.

The defendant paid a portion on closing and executed a promissory note for the balance.

The defendant subsequently defaulted on the promissory note, alleging the plaintiff misrepresented the business's revenue and failed to deliver customer information.

The court rejected the defendant's unpleaded misrepresentation claims, finding the defendant failed to conduct proper due diligence and that the revenue decline was due to the defendant's own actions.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the $65,500 balance owing on the promissory note.

The defendant brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings from examinations for discovery, and the court also determined costs for a previously dismissed security for costs motion.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce a detailed ledger but dismissed the requests for further time sheets and bank records.

The plaintiff was awarded $5,000 in substantial indemnity costs for successfully defending the security for costs motion and for mixed success on the undertakings motion.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment for schizoaffective disorder.

The appellant argued the Board's decision was unreasonable and raised procedural fairness issues regarding the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant was unable to recognize the manifestations of his illness and could not apply relevant information to his own circumstances to weigh the risks and benefits of treatment.

In a divorce action, the maternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to advance a claim for access, which was dismissed.

The court determined the costs of the dismissed motion.

Finding that the motion had no chance of success and the procedure pursued was inappropriate at a late stage, the court awarded the responding party full indemnity costs fixed at $7,000.

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.

Following the dismissal of a motion by a non-party insurer to intervene and compel the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim, the plaintiffs and defendants sought costs against the insurer.

The insurer did not deliver written submissions opposing the costs requests.

The court awarded costs of $18,550 to the plaintiffs and $17,181 to the defendants, payable by the insurer.

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.

Following a train derailment that damaged the plaintiffs' property, the plaintiffs' insurer paid a portion of the losses but failed to commence a subrogated action within the limitation period.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for their uninsured losses only.

The insurer brought a motion for leave to intervene and to compel the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include the subrogated claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that where the insured's loss exceeds the insurance proceeds, the insured is not obligated to maintain an action on behalf of the insurer, and the insurer cannot correct its missed limitation period by compelling the plaintiffs to prosecute the claim.

The third party moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' third party claim against him.

The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a rented boom lift after instructing the third party to remove a pin from the machine.

The third party argued he was merely following the plaintiff's instructions and could not be found negligent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding whether it was reasonable for the third party to follow the instructions without making inquiries or assessing the risk.