Gordon D. Lemon

Applicants sought to set aside a temple by-law passed at a September 2007 general meeting, arguing that forged membership applications and improper proxies invalidated the meeting and the resulting constitution of the organization.

They further alleged that the current board improperly restricted membership.

The court held that the applicants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that forged memberships affected the June 2007 election or that proxies from that meeting were improperly used to pass the September 2007 by-law.

The evidence also did not establish that the board had improperly restricted membership.

The court upheld the validity of the by-law and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and touching a complainant for a sexual purpose allegedly occurring when the complainant was a child between 1999 and 2004.

The trial judge applied the credibility and reasonable doubt framework requiring consideration of the accused’s evidence, whether it raised a reasonable doubt, and whether the Crown’s case proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although the complainant testified sincerely, the court identified significant reliability concerns arising from inconsistencies, contextual improbabilities, and uncertainty in the complainant’s recollection of key events and locations.

The accused provided clear denials and supporting evidence that was not rejected.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a successful application to rectify a will, the court determined the appropriate costs allocation among the parties.

The estate trustee sought costs against two respondents, while one respondent sought costs against the estate or the drafting solicitor.

Applying Rule 58.06 and Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the successful party principle, settlement offers, the conduct of the parties, and proportionality.

The court concluded that the litigation arose from the testator’s own actions and therefore reasonable costs should be borne by the estate.

Costs were awarded to the estate trustee and one respondent from the estate, while another unsuccessful respondent was denied costs.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside an order dismissing the action, the court addressed the defendants’ claim for costs.

The defendants sought over $27,000 in legal fees and additional disbursements, relying on extensive work performed by multiple lawyers, clerks, and students.

The court accepted that the motion’s outcome was predictable and found the staffing and hours claimed by the defendants excessive given the straightforward nature of the motion.

While acknowledging that law firms may allocate work among multiple professionals, the court held that the losing party should not bear the costs of training junior counsel.

Costs were fixed at $13,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shareholder brought a motion in a dispute between equal shareholders of a corporation operating a convenience store, seeking permission to sell the business, appointment of a receiver to supervise the sale, forfeiture of a $25,000 deposit under a prior court order, and an order striking the defendant’s statement of defence.

The court denied an adjournment request by the responding shareholder and accepted the recommendation of the court‑appointed monitor that the business be sold promptly to avoid further litigation expenses.

A receiver was appointed to conduct the sale and supervise operations, with the moving party permitted to control day‑to‑day business activities subject to cooperation with the receiver.

The court also ordered forfeiture of the $25,000 deposit in accordance with an earlier order.

However, the request to strike the defendant’s defence was refused given the defendant’s circumstances abroad and the expectation that issues could be addressed upon distribution of sale proceeds.

Following a motion in which the defendant successfully set aside a default judgment and obtained leave to file a statement of defence, the court determined the appropriate costs order.

The successful moving party sought costs of the motion, while the plaintiff sought higher costs relating both to the motion and the earlier default hearing.

The court found both counsel’s time and rates reasonable but rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to recover costs for earlier proceedings of which the defendant had no knowledge.

Considering the relevant factors, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful moving party, payable only if it ultimately succeeded at trial.

The applicant estate trustee sought to rectify the deceased's secondary will, which dealt solely with her house.

Due to a drafting error by the solicitor, the secondary will omitted a residue clause and duplicated bequests made in the primary will, which would have resulted in a partial intestacy benefiting estranged children.

The estranged children opposed the application, arguing the will should be interpreted as written.

The court found that the drafting solicitor made a clerical error that did not reflect the testator's intentions, and ordered the will rectified to include the residue clause and remove the duplicated bequests.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside an order dismissing the action for failure to comply with discovery undertakings and prior costs orders.

The dismissal had been obtained without notice pursuant to a prior court order permitting the defendants to move if compliance was not achieved.

The court held the motion was not brought forthwith after the order came to the plaintiff’s attention and that no reasonable explanation was provided for the continued failure to complete undertakings or pay costs despite multiple extensions.

The court also found the defendants had experienced prejudice due to outstanding discovery obligations affecting their ability to defend the claim.

The request to set aside the dismissal and extend compliance was therefore refused.

Following a family law application for custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization, the respondent’s pleadings were struck after he left the jurisdiction and failed to participate in the proceedings.

The court proceeded by way of an uncontested hearing.

The court granted the applicant sole custody of the four children with conditional access to the respondent upon his return to Canada.

Income was imputed to the respondent based on prior financial disclosure, resulting in child support and a substantial lump sum spousal support award under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Property division and equalization were also addressed, including transfer of the matrimonial home and a timeshare asset, with set‑off applied between the equalization payment and spousal support.

A procedural endorsement in a family law motion to change where the originally scheduled hearing dates conflicted with the judge’s schedule.

Following a conference call with counsel and consultation with the trial office, the court vacated the previously scheduled dates and set new hearing dates.

The motion was directed to be heard in Brampton.

The judge noted that although not formally seized of the matter, it was anticipated that he would hear the motion.

Following a motion concerning a phased access schedule for a young child, both parties sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court noted that its earlier decision reflected partial success for each side and that neither party obtained the relief they sought.

The court reiterated that cost awards are intended to partially indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate litigation conduct.

In the absence of settlement offers and given the sensitive family law context requiring judicial intervention, the court found neither party was successful.

Accordingly, no costs were awarded.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and writ of seizure and sale arising from a breach of contract claim related to services for preparing SR&ED tax credit documentation.

Applying the test articulated by the Court of Appeal, the court considered promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, existence of an arguable defence, potential prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

Although the court expressed doubts about the credibility of the defendant’s evidence regarding service and the factual basis of the defence, it accepted that the motion was brought promptly and that there was a plausible explanation for the failure to defend.

The court also found that the defendant had an arguable defence on the merits concerning whether it qualified for SR&ED credits and whether the contract had been terminated.

Balancing the relevant factors, the court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to set aside a final order obtained after an uncontested hearing.

The court found that the applicant’s counsel proceeded with the uncontested trial without notifying opposing counsel despite ongoing correspondence and knowledge that the respondent was represented.

The court held that counsel failed to disclose material procedural background and failed to respond to communications, undermining the fairness of the process.

Applying the principles governing motions to set aside default judgments and considering the integrity of the administration of justice, the court found that the moving party acted promptly, had a valid explanation for the default, and demonstrated an arguable defence.

The final order was set aside and costs were awarded against the applicant.

In a family law proceeding, the court conducted a case management conference call with counsel to address trial preparation and streamline the issues.

The parties continued narrowing the matters in dispute and working to shorten the anticipated trial.

The court directed that a further conference call be scheduled to continue case management and facilitate efficient trial preparation.

Following an interim family law decision awarding the applicant lump sum support based on an imputed income to the respondent, the court considered the applicant’s request for costs.

The Family Law Rules establish a presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and require the court to consider factors such as complexity, time spent, and the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct.

The court found the applicant was successful and noted the respondent’s late production of documents that proved unhelpful, resulting in an adverse inference.

Considering the importance of the issues and the time spent arguing the matter over two days, the court found the requested costs reasonable and fixed costs in favour of the applicant.

Following a prior application decision, both sides sought costs.

The applicant succeeded on the issue of lack of notice regarding a proposed sale of corporate assets, while the respondents succeeded on the issue concerning entitlement to certain chattels.

The court reviewed the purposes of costs awards and noted the absence of settlement offers.

Considering the mixed success and the relative importance of the issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following a family law decision determining a child’s principal residence and adjusting child support, the successful party sought costs of $10,000.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the complexity of the issues, the conduct of both parties, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and the overall fairness of the claimed costs.

The court noted that the unsuccessful party, who was self‑represented, had behaved reasonably, while the successful party had failed to timely disclose an income increase affecting support obligations.

After adjusting the costs outline to remove inappropriate or duplicated charges and considering the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful party, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

The costs were ordered payable by installments with interest on any outstanding balance.

During a conference call, the court addressed the scheduling of outstanding motions in a civil proceeding involving a corporation operating a religious organization and multiple individual defendants.

On consent of the parties, the court established a timetable governing the service and filing of motion materials, responding materials, and reply materials.

The schedule also provided deadlines for any motions brought by a self-represented party and fixed a hearing date for all motions.

The decision functioned as a case management endorsement establishing procedural timelines.

The applicant shareholder sought an injunction preventing the sale of corporate real property and a mandatory order for the return of personal chattels allegedly left on the property.

The court found that the proposed sale constituted a disposition of assets outside the ordinary course of business and required a properly noticed special meeting of shareholders under the Business Corporations Act.

The applicant had received insufficient notice and was deprived of dissent rights associated with such a transaction.

The court therefore set aside the proposed sale and maintained the injunction preventing it.

However, the request for return of personal chattels was dismissed due to unresolved credibility issues and insufficient evidence on the paper record.

The moving party brought a motion to vary a prior consent judgment concerning custody, child support, and related financial issues.

One child had begun residing primarily with the moving party, while the other continued to share time between both households.

The court considered the best interests of the child under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act and accepted the older child’s preference to live primarily with the moving party.

The court also determined both parties’ incomes for support purposes, imputing income where deductions or reporting were not adequately justified under the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying principles governing hybrid custody arrangements, the court varied the support order, recalculated retroactive obligations, and declined to vary spousal support due to the absence of a material change in circumstances.