Donald J. Gordon

The applicant sought spousal support, access to the children, and an equalization of net family properties following a ten-year cohabitation.

The court found the applicant intentionally underemployed, failed to disclose significant assets including an inheritance, and made no financial contribution to the family.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, imputed income to the applicant, and ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, resulting in no equalization payment to the applicant.

The appellant mechanic appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $15,000 for the value of their vehicle after a failed engine conversion.

The appellant argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and erred in calculating damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons were brief, the evidentiary record supported the conclusions and permitted appellate review.

The court also held that the methodology for calculating damages was reasonable and correct given the appellant's breach of contract.

The defendants moved to transfer a contract and fiduciary duty action from Toronto to Simcoe.

The court applied the venue transfer factors under Rules 13.1.01(2) and 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the plaintiff's presumptive entitlement to choose the venue and the moving party's burden to show on cogent and persuasive evidence that another county was more desirable in the interest of justice.

While some factors modestly favoured Simcoe and others modestly favoured Toronto, the balance did not displace the plaintiff's chosen venue.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a claim alleging knowing assistance in a departing lawyer's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, trust, good faith, and loyalty arising from the transfer of client files to a competing firm.

Applying the knowing assistance framework and the summary judgment principles under Rule 20.04, the court held there was no evidence that the moving parties had actual knowledge of, or were wilfully blind to, any dishonest and fraudulent breach of trust.

The evidentiary record showed the moving party cautioned the departing lawyer to comply with professional obligations and that the respondent failed to challenge that evidence.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the moving parties.

Following the breakdown of a common-law relationship involving two children, the court determined outstanding support and property issues after parenting issues had been resolved by settlement.

The court fixed the parties' incomes, increased the respondent's share of section 7 expenses, and ordered retroactive child and spousal support adjustments after finding the respondent had underpaid support and failed to provide timely income disclosure.

Applying compensatory and non-compensatory support principles and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered ongoing indefinite spousal support at the mid-range.

On the property claim, the court found a joint family venture and unjust enrichment, and granted a monetary remedy rather than a proprietary one, together with transfer of the respondent's interest in the family vehicle.

This supplementary family law costs endorsement followed a trial concerning spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related matters.

The court held the applicant was successful on all trial issues, that her offers to settle were reasonable, and that the respondent's offers were not.

The court further found the respondent pursued unsupported allegations of fraud and dishonesty throughout trial, amounting to reprehensible conduct warranting elevated costs.

Full indemnity costs were fixed at $56,477.47 and ordered payable from the respondent's share of trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The defendants brought a motion for a further affidavit of documents and disclosure from a non-party insurer regarding an accident benefits settlement.

After the substantive issues were resolved, both parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants alleged the plaintiffs misrepresented the settlement to deprive them of collateral benefit deductions.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that the alleged misrepresentation was pleaded in the amended statement of defence and should be determined by the trial judge.

The costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breach of probation.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence regarding the self-identification of the person he was associating with, and by relying on in-court identification.

The appeal court found that the admissible evidence, considered as a whole, was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court also upheld the consecutive sentence, noting that the breach of a court order shortly after release from custody was egregious and warranted a consecutive sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a 27-year marriage, the court determined corollary family law issues including ongoing spousal support, equalization of net family properties, occupation rent, and security for support.

The respondent alleged undisclosed savings and misappropriation of family funds, but the court found those allegations speculative, relied in part on deemed admissions under Rule 22, and concluded there were no undisclosed accounts.

Applying the SSAG and the objectives in s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the court awarded indefinite spousal support at the SSAG mid-point and rejected the claim that income should be imputed for deliberate underemployment.

The court also resolved disputed asset valuations and post-separation adjustments, ordered a net payment from the applicant's share of house sale proceeds, dismissed the occupation rent claim, and required life insurance to secure support.

Following a three‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed, the defendant municipality sought costs of approximately $194,144.88.

The court found that the materials provided were insufficient to justify the amount sought and appeared to include costs related to other actions that had been settled before trial.

Because the record lacked sufficient information to assess the requested amount, the court declined to determine a specific figure.

Costs of the wrongful dismissal claim were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, with the amount to be assessed pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, who were arrested multiple times during counter-protests at the Caledonia native occupation, brought a motion to amend their statements of claim to add new allegations of wrongful arrest, Charter violations, conspiracy, and harassment.

The defendant Crown brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the amended claims.

The court held that several of the new claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as they constituted separate events rather than a continuing tort.

The court also struck the conspiracy and harassment claims for lack of particulars, but granted leave to amend.

The Crown's motion to strike the defamation claim was dismissed, as the court found the impugned remarks were capable of referring to the plaintiff despite not naming him specifically.

A municipal administrator brought an action for wrongful dismissal alleging he had been hired under a three‑year fixed‑term contract as CAO/Clerk of a municipality.

The municipality asserted that the appointment was temporary and that services were provided through the plaintiff’s consulting company on an interim basis while a permanent replacement was sought.

The court rejected the authenticity and reliability of an alleged email exchange said to form a fixed‑term employment contract and found that the municipal by‑laws and surrounding evidence demonstrated a temporary acting appointment.

The court further concluded the services were provided through the plaintiff’s corporation as an independent contractor arrangement.

As the temporary engagement ended when the municipality appointed a permanent replacement, no notice or damages were owed.

A contractor sued a distributor and manufacturer after copper tubing supplied for a municipal watermain failed a mandatory sterilization test required by municipal specifications, forcing replacement with alternative piping and causing significant remediation costs.

The court held the distributor liable in contract under the Sale of Goods Act for breach of implied conditions of fitness and merchantable quality, finding the contractor relied on the distributor’s expertise and that the tubing was not fit for its intended municipal watermain use.

The manufacturer was found liable in negligence for failing to investigate regulatory requirements and municipal sterilization standards after legislative changes following the Walkerton water crisis and for failing to warn the parties despite internal knowledge that high chlorine concentrations could cause corrosion and sterilization test failure.

The court concluded the manufacturer breached its duty of care and failed to disclose critical information during the project.

Damages were awarded for remediation costs incurred in removing and replacing the copper tubing.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs of $7,549.16.

The respondents argued the amount was not proportional to the $25,000 in dispute and requested costs be awarded only against two of the three respondents.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount reasonable and proportionate, noting the complexity of the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the appellant in the requested amount against all respondents.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing a motion for a defence neuropsychological examination in a motor vehicle accident action.

The underlying motion had been brought after the action was set down for trial and after several other defence medical examinations had already been conducted.

The court considered the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the proposed appeal raised arguable issues regarding the need for leave after an action is placed on a trial list and whether an additional medical examination should have been permitted, the court found the issues lacked general importance and largely reflected litigation strategy and delay by the defendant.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The purchasers of a residential property and the vendor brought a Small Claims Court action against the vendor's real estate agent and the contractor hired by the vendor to perform renovations.

The trial judge awarded damages against both the agent and the contractor for negligent misrepresentation and defective work.

The contractor appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by treating the contractor as an agent and finding a special relationship where none existed.

The contractor had no contractual relationship with the purchasers, and his liability was solely to the vendor, who had suffered no damages.

The parties resolved ongoing child support by mediation, but proceeded to trial on retroactive child support, extraordinary expenses, and spousal support.

The applicant sought retroactive child support from 2011, contribution to their adult daughter's college expenses, and ongoing spousal support.

The court found the respondent had underpaid child support and ordered $12,000 in retroactive support.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share of college expenses ($7,840) and $300 monthly in spousal support, noting the applicant's limited income and the financial impact of the respondent's past gambling addiction.

The applicant sought a declaration that a marriage contract and subsequent amending agreement executed prior to marriage were valid and enforceable.

The respondent argued the agreements should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to alleged nondisclosure of significant assets, lack of understanding of the agreements’ consequences, and misrepresentation and undue influence.

The court found the applicant had provided adequate financial disclosure and that the respondent understood the essential terms, including waivers of spousal support and equalization.

Independent legal advice had been obtained and the respondent chose not to pursue further disclosure.

The court also held that the applicant’s potential interest in a discretionary family trust was incapable of valuation and had been adequately disclosed as a contingent inheritance.

The marriage contract and amending agreement were upheld and the respondent’s application to set them aside was dismissed.

Following dismissal of both an oppression claim and counterclaim under the Business Corporations Act, the defendants sought costs relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle that exceeded the trial result.

The plaintiff argued the offer was of perpetual variation and that each party should bear their own costs.

The court rejected those submissions, finding the offer was capable of calculation at any time and constituted a substantial offer compared to the trial outcome.

Applying Rule 49.10 strictly, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

Costs were fixed at $56,473 after adjusting the hourly rate claimed for trial counsel.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in a civil action alleging wrongful arrest, excessive force, unlawful entry, and negligent police investigation arising from a warrantless entry into a residence and the use of a Taser.

The moving parties argued that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award and that the action was frivolous and vexatious.

The court held that the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets, noting that the asset search was superficial and did not account for property interests on reserve lands.

The court further found that the claim was not clearly devoid of merit, particularly given unresolved issues regarding exigent circumstances, use of force, and the adequacy of the police investigation.

As both branches of the conjunctive test under Rule 56.01(1)(e) were not satisfied, the motion for security for costs was dismissed.