Gordon D. Lemon

The plaintiff uncle loaned $177,000 to the defendant niece to assist her with purchasing a house while her family law matter was pending.

The parties did not sign a written loan agreement and disagreed on when the loan was to be repaid.

The plaintiff argued it was a short-term loan, while the defendant claimed it was repayable after the resolution of her family law proceedings.

The court found that no specific date for repayment was agreed upon, making it a demand loan.

The plaintiff made a demand for repayment in March 2022.

The court also found that the claim was not statute-barred because the defendant had acknowledged the debt through partial payments.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $148,955.03.

The defendant, Michael Naser Philib Zakhari, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Crown conceded reasonable doubt on the sexual assault charge.

The core issue for sexual interference was the defence of mistaken belief in age, specifically whether the defendant honestly believed the complainant was 16 or older and took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable regarding impairment and inconsistencies.

Based on the evidence, including that the complainant and her friends actively misrepresented her age as 18, the court found that the defendant honestly believed the complainant was 18 and took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of both charges.

Wessuc Inc. sued Todd Brothers Contracting Limited and The Guarantee Company of North America (GCNA) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of trust related to a sludge removal contract.

Todd counterclaimed for Wessuc's failure to complete the contract.

The court found that the contract was a lump sum agreement for 6100 m³ of sludge removal, not a per-unit price for total volume including water.

Wessuc abandoned the project by ceasing work and failing to provide a plan for completion, entitling Todd to terminate the contract.

Wessuc's claim for damages and quantum meruit was dismissed as it did not substantially complete the work.

Todd's counterclaim for costs incurred to complete Wessuc's work, including cattail removal, equipment, fuel spill cleanup, and sand/sawdust for drying sludge, was allowed for $53,000.

GCNA was found to have no obligations under the bond due to Wessuc's failure to provide timely and adequate notice.

The plaintiff, Steve Scarrow, sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages for constructive dismissal, a retirement allowance, unpaid wages, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The defendants, including John Robert Walkey and three related corporations, were noted in default and did not file a defence, leading to an undefended trial.

The court found that Mr. Scarrow was constructively dismissed and was entitled to 24 months' salary in lieu of notice, a promised retirement allowance, and unpaid wages.

The court also awarded aggravated and punitive damages due to the defendants' bad faith conduct and the devastating impact on the plaintiff.

The claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed as the other awards provided adequate compensation.

All defendants were found jointly and severally liable under the common employer doctrine.

Wessuc Inc. brought a motion on the second day of trial to withdraw several admissions made in its Amended Reply and Defence to Amended Counterclaim.

The admissions were inconsistent with Wessuc's main pleadings, particularly regarding the contract terms (unit price vs. capped price) and notice under a labour and material payment bond.

The court applied the three-part test for withdrawing admissions (triable issue, inadvertence, and lack of uncompensable prejudice).

The court found that the proposed amendments raised triable issues, the admissions were due to "breathtaking" inadvertence by counsel, and there was no uncompensable prejudice to the defendants, who had continued preparing for trial on the contested issues.

The motion was granted, allowing Wessuc to withdraw the admissions.

No costs were awarded for the two days of court time lost due to the motion, as both parties were deemed at fault for the delay.

The plaintiff, Lou Maieron, sued Ugo Guila (and related corporate defendants) and the Town of Erin, alleging an improper easement on his land.

The dispute arose from a 1997 settlement agreement between Maieron and Guila for the transfer of land (Block 56) subject to a water monitoring easement.

In 2003, Guila and the Town of Erin entered a Subdivision Agreement granting an expanded, permanent easement for stormwater management, including construction, over Block 56, without Maieron's involvement.

Maieron objected to this expanded easement in the deed and did not register it, but paid property taxes on the land.

At trial, Maieron sought to amend his claim to remove the expanded easement, replace it with the original monitoring easement, obtain reimbursement for taxes paid, and gain the right to remove installations.

The court dismissed the amendment request due to lengthy and unexplained delay, finding presumed prejudice to the defendants and that the claim was stale-dated.

The court also dismissed all of Maieron's claims, finding the Town of Erin was not a party to the original 1997 agreement and had statutory authority for its easement.

While Guila breached the 1997 agreement, Maieron failed to prove any damages.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to relocate to Nova Scotia with the parties' five-year-old son to start a farming business.

The parties had a shared parenting arrangement in Guelph, Ontario.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the mother bore the burden of proving the move was in the child's best interests.

The court concluded the mother's financial and farming plan was uncertain and that the move would drastically reduce the child's time with his father and extended family.

The motion to relocate was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for killing his grandfather using a hammer and a dog leash.

The Crown sought a 17-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 years.

The court considered the offender's untreated mental health issues, including schizophrenia, alongside the brutal and unprovoked nature of the attack.

Balancing the aggravating factors and the jury's recommendations against the mitigating factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.

In supplementary reasons to a trial judgment, the court addressed submissions from both parties regarding alleged arithmetic and typographical errors.

The court issued a corrigendum to correct the proportional sharing percentage for 2021 section 7 expenses, a typographical error regarding the respondent's income, the termination date of spousal support, and the termination date of child support.

The court declined to adjust the respondent's employment income for 2019 and 2021, and left the dispute over the Family Responsibility Office balance to the usual administrative process.

The court issued a corrigendum to amend paragraphs 170, 228, and 233 of the Reasons for Judgment dated September 5, 2023.

The amendments corrected the termination dates and calculations for spousal support and child support, noting the applicant's inability to pay spousal support after July 2021 and confirming the end of child support obligations as of June 2023.

The defendant, E.R., was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the complainant, Ms. Mathewson, consented to the sexual activity and whether E.R. had an honest but mistaken belief in her consent.

The court found Ms. Mathewson's evidence regarding lack of consent unreliable due to inconsistencies and accepted E.R.'s detailed and corroborated account of consensual activity.

The court concluded that Ms. Mathewson had capacity to consent and did so through affirmative conduct, and E.R.'s belief in her consent was honest and reasonable.

E.R. was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with manslaughter after a neighbourly dispute escalated.

The accused went to the deceased's garage to discuss an altercation that occurred the previous day between their wives.

The deceased became angry, threatened to kill the accused, and reached for what appeared to be a handgun (later determined to be a pellet gun).

In response, the accused punched the deceased once in the head, causing a rare vertebral artery tear that resulted in death.

The court found that the accused acted in lawful self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, as he reasonably believed force was being threatened and his response was proportionate.

The accused was found not guilty.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant did not file a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

The court found the defendant breached the contract to sell her home and awarded the plaintiff $125,000 in damages, representing the difference between the purchase price and the property's appraised value on the closing date.

The plaintiff was also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision caused by the defendants.

The defendants did not contest liability.

The trial focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychiatric injuries, rendering him unable to return to his employment as a Lead Hand electrician for the City of Guelph.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's injuries were exaggerated and that he could return to work with accommodation.

The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his treating medical experts, finding that he suffered permanent and serious impairments, including cognitive deficits, vision and hearing issues, and chronic pain.

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in general damages, $38,177.40 in special damages, $75,308 for past lost wages, $1,282,074 for future income loss, and $735,092 for future care costs.

The plaintiffs sought damages after a house fire caused by failure of a motor within a heat recovery ventilator.

The court found that the appliance manufacturer negligently designed the unit by using cycling thermal protection without adequate system-level overcurrent protection or adequate end-of-life safety measures, and awarded property and non-pecuniary damages totalling $1,133,739.00.

The motor supplier was not liable because the motor itself was not defective, the appliance manufacturer bore responsibility for integrating the component safely into the finished product, and causation was not established on any alleged failure to warn.

The court also dismissed an issue estoppel motion based on prior Québec litigation and held that, if the component supplier had been liable, the contractual indemnity terms would have required indemnification by the appliance manufacturer.

The applicant submitted written submissions pointing out errors in the court's previous DivorceMate calculations for spousal support.

The respondent did not reply.

The court acknowledged the errors, which included failing to update annual income, override child support, and remove special expenses from year to year.

The court corrected the calculations and issued a corrigendum updating the spousal support arrears and ongoing monthly obligations.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent following his early retirement, retroactive spousal and child support, section 7 expenses for their son's post-secondary education, and a further equalization payment.

The court found the respondent was intentionally underemployed by retiring early and imputed his income at $96,286.

Spousal support was varied and continued, while child support was found to have ended in June 2020.

The claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a further equalization payment were dismissed.

The accused was charged with ten offences arising from a series of events over three days, including a home invasion, gas station robberies, vehicle thefts, and a police pursuit.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on clothing, stolen property, fingerprints, and tracking data.

The court applied the standard for circumstantial evidence, finding the accused guilty of the home invasion, vehicle thefts, license plate thefts, and failing to stop for police, as his guilt was the only rational conclusion.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of the gas station robbery and an attempted robbery, as the evidence left a reasonable doubt regarding his specific identity among multiple individuals present.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was brought outside the one-year limitation period set out in the Insurance Act and the standard automobile insurance policy.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not for breach of contract, but for breach of the insurer's independent duty of good faith, which is subject to the basic two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that based on the pleadings, the bad faith claim is separate and distinct from a claim under the insurance contract, and therefore falls outside the one-year limitation period.

The plaintiff developer brought an action against the City of Guelph seeking reimbursement for local service charges paid for road improvements as a condition of subdivision approval.

The City moved to strike the claim, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was an abuse of process because the developer failed to appeal the conditions to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal under the Planning Act.

The Superior Court granted the motion, finding that the developer was improperly attempting to circumvent the statutory appeal scheme and collaterally attack municipal by-laws, making it plain and obvious the claim could not succeed.