Donald J. Gordon

The applicant university sought a declaration requiring insurers of a contractor to provide a defence in an underlying personal injury action arising from a trip and fall at a Canada Day event involving inflatable rides.

The university had been named as an additional insured under the contractor’s commercial general liability policy, but only for liability arising from the contractor’s operations.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada duty-to-defend principles, the court examined the pleadings to determine the true nature of the claim.

The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff tripped on a metal stake near an inflatable but did not specifically connect the hazard to the contractor’s operations.

Because the pleadings did not establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged negligence and the contractor’s activities covered by the policy, the insurers had no duty to defend the university.

Following a long-term marriage, the applicant sought retroactive and time-limited spousal support despite a waiver contained in minutes of settlement.

The court applied the Miglin framework to determine whether the settlement agreement should be overridden.

It found no flaw in the negotiation process and concluded the waiver of retroactive spousal support substantially complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

However, the agreement preserved a limited right to claim spousal support if the respondent earned more than a specified income threshold.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered a lump-sum payment for the preserved support period without any child support offset due to insufficient evidence.

Following a long-term marriage of nearly 29 years, the parties proceeded to trial regarding spousal support and prior extraordinary child expenses after resolving most parenting and child support issues.

The applicant sought termination or reduction of spousal support, arguing the respondent had sufficient qualifications to obtain comparable employment.

The court accepted the respondent’s evidence that employment opportunities were limited and that her current income was modest despite efforts to obtain work.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the economic consequences of the marriage and childcare responsibilities, the court increased spousal support and declined to impose a termination date.

Claims for reimbursement of certain past extraordinary expenses were largely rejected.

The plaintiff shareholder sought an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act arising from the collapse and bankruptcy of a painting business in which she and one defendant were directors and shareholders.

The parties had attempted a series of agreements for the plaintiff to purchase the defendants’ shares, but the transactions never closed while the corporation’s financial position deteriorated due to unpaid tax remittances, declining revenue, and withdrawals by both directors.

After resuming control of the corporation, the defendant placed it into bankruptcy and began a new painting business.

The court held both directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose financial issues, failing to exercise due diligence, and placing personal interests ahead of the corporation.

Because both parties’ conduct contributed to the collapse and undermined any objectively reasonable shareholder expectations, neither established entitlement to an oppression remedy.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought to bifurcate the case so that the validity of two marriage contracts would be tried first before addressing spousal support and equalization claims.

The respondent opposed bifurcation and sought interim expenses of $100,000 to fund the litigation.

Applying Rule 12(5) of the Family Law Rules and relevant jurisprudence, the court held that the validity of the marriage contracts was a threshold issue and that splitting the case would likely shorten the litigation, reduce expense, and promote settlement.

The court found no prejudice to the respondent and ordered a first trial limited to the validity of the marriage contracts.

The respondent’s motion for further interim expenses was dismissed because a prior award remained sufficient to fund the initial trial stage.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's claim for child support.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement waiving child support, and the moving party argued he did not have a settled intention to treat the responding party's children as his own.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the separation agreement's support provisions should be set aside and whether the moving party stood in loco parentis to the children.

The court held that credibility issues and the need for financial disclosure precluded summary judgment under the restricted test of Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the refusal of her application for registration as a Nurse Practitioner.

The appellant had failed the required examination three times and argued the examination was unfair because it was based on American nursing practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable as the appellant provided no evidence to establish the examination was unfair or that she was personally adversely affected by its content.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board approving the respondent's application to construct electricity transmission lines for a wind energy project and approving the forms of land agreements offered to affected landowners.

The appellant argued the independent legal advice clauses in the agreements were misleading and the Board failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the approval of the form of agreement was a discretionary decision that did not raise a question of law or jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Board's decision was reasonable and its reasons were adequate.

A roofing contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment of holdback funds and alleged extras following completion of a roofing installation project.

The property owner asserted a set‑off for the contractor’s failure to provide the expected system warranty and disputed responsibility for additional invoices.

The court interpreted the contract to require a system warranty covering labour and materials, not merely a material warranty, and held the owner was entitled to compensation for the missing warranty though less than claimed.

The contractor was also found responsible for damage caused by improper installation practices that allowed rainwater to enter through unsealed screw holes during construction.

Judgment was granted in a reduced amount reflecting the set‑off and limited entitlement to extras.

Following a high‑conflict family law proceeding, the court determined issues of access, spousal support, and equalization of net family property after the parties’ separation and litigation history involving multiple interim orders.

The respondent, who suffered from significant mental health issues and was residing in a psychiatric facility, sought spousal support and contact with the children.

The court held that access was not in the children’s best interests given the history of trauma and lack of contact for several years.

The court also rejected the respondent’s spousal support claim, finding no demonstrated need and no ability to pay given the applicant’s financial obligations for the children.

Equalization was calculated and offset against an existing costs award.

The applicant sought retroactive and future spousal support following a 25-year traditional marriage.

The respondent, who had recently retired after 30 years of service, opposed future support, arguing his pension had already been equalized.

The court awarded $15,000 in retroactive spousal support but dismissed the claim for future support, finding the respondent's retirement was reasonable and he had no obligation to supplement his pension income.

Claims for compensatory support and arguments regarding gross repudiation of the marriage were also dismissed.

Following a prior summary judgment awarding the plaintiff approximately $994,728.92 on a guarantee claim, the court addressed the appropriate quantum of costs.

The successful party sought $32,500 in partial indemnity costs, while the responding parties argued for $20,000 and challenged docketed hours, hourly rate, and the use of senior counsel rather than junior counsel.

The court held that costs are determined based on what is fair and reasonable rather than through strict percentage formulas and found the docketed hours reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that work should have been delegated to junior counsel, noting that the experience of senior counsel may reduce total time required.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

In a motor vehicle collision action involving a police officer driver, co-defendants sought an order compelling a police officer witness to re-attend for cross-examination and to answer previously refused questions regarding internal police review reports assessing fault and potential charges.

The dispute concerned whether undisclosed internal police “tracking reports” prepared by senior officers reviewing the collision investigation were relevant and producible under Rule 30.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that relevance in discovery is broadly construed and that the senior officers’ assessments of fault formed part of the investigative process relating directly to the issue of liability.

The fact that the officer involved was not charged did not render the internal reports irrelevant.

The motion was granted and the police defendants were ordered to disclose the tracking report and permit further cross‑examination.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants as guarantors of a $500,000 loan provided for a retirement home construction project.

The defendants argued they were released from their guarantees due to material alterations to the loan agreement, accord and satisfaction, premature demand, and laches.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court rejected all defences, finding no material alteration, no acceptance of units in satisfaction of the debt, that the loan was due, and that the delay in demanding payment benefited rather than prejudiced the defendants.

Summary judgment was granted in the amount claimed.

The moving party brought a motion to change prior family law orders seeking a reduction in child support and termination of spousal support following changes in income due to illness and disability benefits.

The court was required to recalculate support obligations from 2010 onward based on actual incomes of the parties.

It held that a claimed rental loss relating to the matrimonial home could not be used to reduce the moving party’s income for support purposes.

Child support was recalculated annually based on determined incomes, and extraordinary expenses were ordered to be shared proportionately under the Child Support Guidelines.

Spousal support was varied to reflect updated income levels, resulting in reduced payments and no support payable in one year.

No costs were awarded as both self‑represented parties acted reasonably.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement governing shift assignments for transit operators.

The arbitrator had found that the employer's method of assigning work on the spare board violated the agreement, interpreting provisions related to vacant shifts and wind down operators.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including her reliance on past practice to resolve an ambiguity, to be defensible and reasonable.

The plaintiff brought an action in slander against the defendant for making defamatory allegations to the plaintiff’s employer that implied criminal conduct and professional misconduct.

The defendant failed to file a defence and was noted in default, and the matter proceeded to trial solely for the assessment of damages.

The court held that the defamatory statements alleged criminal activity and were communicated directly to the plaintiff’s employer, affecting professional reputation.

Applying established defamation damages factors and noting the defendant’s malice and refusal to retract the statements, the court awarded general damages.

Judgment was granted for $10,000 in damages and $750 in costs.

The applicant sought declarations that a writ of execution obtained by the respondents did not attach to his real property and requested removal of execution restrictions from title.

The respondents brought a responding application asserting that the writs bound the applicant as the true judgment debtor under a foreign judgment enforcement action.

The court found the applicant had never been properly served with the statement of claim underlying the default judgment relied upon by the respondents.

Without valid service, the judgment was a nullity and could not support the writ of execution against the applicant’s land.

The court granted the applicant’s relief and dismissed the respondents’ application.

Following partial minutes of settlement resolving parenting and certain support issues, the court conducted a trial to determine retroactive child support, retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, spousal support, property equalization, and entitlement to the child tax benefit.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence regarding the historical residence of the children and ordered retroactive child support based on the respondent’s imputed income after he voluntarily left his employment.

The court also awarded retroactive section 7 expenses and directed the parties to share future extraordinary expenses equally.

Although entitlement to spousal support was established, no award was made due to the respondent’s child support obligations.

The court further ordered a modest equalization payment and granted a restraining order against the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring a statutory third party insurer to defend the underlying motor vehicle accident action on their behalf or, alternatively, on behalf of one defendant.

The insurer had denied coverage based on an alleged breach of policy conditions after the vehicle was driven by a G1 licence holder without the required accompanying licensed passenger.

Applying the flexible approach outlined in Longo v. Maciorowski, the court considered factors including the insurer’s denial of coverage, the absence of estoppel arguments, and the procedural posture of the action.

The court concluded that unresolved factual disputes, including whether the vehicle owner permitted the driver to operate the vehicle alone, involved credibility issues unsuitable for determination on the motion record.

The motion was therefore dismissed.