Gordon D. Lemon

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support and section 7 expenses, seeking to impute income to the respondent father who claimed to be unemployed.

The court drew an adverse inference against the respondent due to evidence of hidden income and past fraudulent income declarations.

The court ordered the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home held in trust to be transferred to the applicant for child support.

The respondent's request for supervised access was granted on consent, at his own expense.

Following reasons determining a contract interpretation dispute regarding the price payable to repurchase property, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $32,000, while one opposing party proposed a $10,000 award and another argued that no costs should be ordered.

Applying the principles in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the jurisprudence emphasizing fairness and reasonableness, the court found the requested costs excessive given the number of lawyers involved and the volume of hours billed.

The court reduced the award and fixed costs at $15,000 payable by one applicant, noting that the other applicant had minimal involvement in the litigation.

The parties jointly sought a modification to an existing timetable set out in a prior endorsement regarding the delivery of factums.

The court accepted the parties’ agreement to extend the plaintiff’s deadline for serving a factum and the defendant’s corresponding deadline.

The court ordered the revised timetable and directed that, once factums are delivered, counsel arrange a conference call with the court to schedule a date for oral argument.

Following a motion regarding a residential tenancy and alleged fraud, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had been successful in obtaining what they sought, as the appellant was permitted to remain in the home while the respondent began receiving rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

Following a decision on cross-motions where the appellant was permitted to remain in her home provided she paid rent to the respondent, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had achieved divided success, as the appellant remained in the home and the respondent received rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

The mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage and dismiss the borrowers’ claims that the debt had been discharged.

The borrowers asserted that they had paid the mortgage using purported electronic fund transfer instruments or bills of exchange marked “Not For Deposit” and “Without Recourse.” The court found that the documents were drawn on a closed bank account and that there was no evidence of actual payment.

Concluding that the borrowers failed to provide evidence establishing any genuine issue requiring a trial, the court held that the instruments were worthless and did not constitute payment of the mortgage debt.

Summary judgment was granted to the mortgagee and the borrowers’ claims were dismissed.

Following a family law motion in which the respondent was found to have breached a prior court order requiring cooperation with a reintegration program, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought full recovery costs alleging unreasonable conduct and bad faith, while the responding party argued no costs should be awarded and sought costs relating to an adjournment.

The court found the moving party had been successful on the most important issue, namely the finding of breach of the court order.

While rejecting the claim for full recovery costs and excluding work related to unrelated issues, the court fixed a fair and reasonable amount payable by the unsuccessful party.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding where the respondent successfully obtained an order referring the matter to mediation/arbitration and appointing a parenting coordinator, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis, but the notice of motion had requested only $1,500.

The court held that a costs award should not exceed the amount requested in the notice of motion.

Given that a pending arbitration would determine whether the successful party was in arrears, the court ordered costs of $1,500 payable only upon the arbitrator’s award or other resolution of the matter.

The applicant sought a declaration that the Director under the Consumer Protection Act improperly kept information about its charge and conviction posted on the Government of Ontario website beyond the period permitted by Ontario Regulation 17/05.

The applicant argued the regulation allowed publication of either charges or convictions for a maximum period of 21–27 months, but not both sequentially.

The court held that the word “or” in the regulation is presumptively inclusive, permitting the Ministry to post information about charges and later convictions separately for their own permitted periods.

Interpreting the provision consistently with the consumer protection purpose of the legislation, the court found that both postings were authorized.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to the Divisional Court and brought a motion to stay the appeal pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute an improper collateral attack on the Board's proceedings.

However, the court granted the appellant an extension of time to perfect the appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments to the respondent to maintain the property.

The appellant brought a motion to stay her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute a collateral attack on the Board's order.

However, the court granted the appellant a six-month extension to perfect her appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments of $1,675 to the respondent in trust.

The responding spouse brought a motion seeking a stay of court proceedings and an order requiring the parties to resolve outstanding parenting and child support issues through mediation and arbitration pursuant to their separation agreement.

The other spouse did not oppose the stay but sought costs for court proceedings she argued were unnecessary.

The court confirmed that the agreement required the dispute to proceed through mediation and arbitration and stayed the court proceedings accordingly.

The court declined to order additional costs, noting inaccuracies in the bill of costs, overlapping prior costs orders, and unreasonable conduct by the responding spouse in conditionally resisting arbitration despite the contractual dispute resolution clause.

Issues of further costs were left to the arbitrator.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the return of two children to Brampton, Ontario, and establishing an interim parenting schedule pending trial.

The respondent father had relocated the children from Brampton to Scarborough without prior notice to involved parties, leading to a dispute regarding the children’s interim residence and schooling.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court declined to order the children returned to Brampton, emphasizing the instability of the evidence on the motion record and the fact that the children had been living with the father since December 2012.

The court granted the father interim custody for the limited purpose of making school registration decisions and ordered substantial access for the mother.

The applicant’s request for security for costs under Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules was dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration that they could exercise a contractual option to repurchase real property for $400,000 after crediting an $800,000 vendor take‑back mortgage against a stated repurchase price of $1,200,000.

The respondent argued the mortgage clause required payment of the full $1,200,000 to reacquire the property, with the mortgage deemed satisfied upon payment.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and held the clause was unambiguous: exercising the option required payment of $1,200,000 without deduction for the outstanding mortgage.

Contextual evidence and surrounding circumstances did not alter the plain wording, and the contra proferentem rule was inapplicable because both parties participated in drafting the agreement.

The application was dismissed and the respondent’s cross‑application granted declaring that the option could only be exercised upon payment of $1,200,000 subject to normal real estate adjustments.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking remedies for the respondent mother's breach of a court order requiring participation in reunification therapy with the children.

The mother sought to terminate the therapy and requested a new custody assessment.

The court found the mother in clear breach of the consent order by unilaterally terminating the therapy.

The court declined to strike the mother's pleadings or impose a fine, but ordered the immediate resumption of therapy and required the mother to reimburse the father for half the costs of the therapy to date.

The mother's requests to remove the therapist and for a new assessment were dismissed, and the matter was expedited to trial.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms and drug offences after police responded to a 911 call about suspicious males in his apartment building.

A scuffle ensued when the accused exited his apartment, leading to his arrest and the discovery of a concealed knife.

A subsequent search of the apartment revealed a shotgun and crack cocaine.

The court found the accused guilty of carrying a concealed weapon based on his own admission and police evidence.

However, due to significant inconsistencies in the officers' testimonies regarding the discovery of shotgun shells and the weapons, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's possession of the shotgun and drugs, resulting in acquittals on those charges.

The plaintiff moved to amend a statement of claim arising from a motor vehicle collision by removing the existing defendants and adding a new defendant alleged to be the correct tortfeasor.

The motion was brought after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period, with the plaintiff arguing the claim was only discovered upon reviewing disclosure materials indicating another driver caused the collision.

The court applied the discoverability principles governing motions to add parties and held that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of reasonable diligence in identifying the proper defendant within the limitation period.

The evidentiary record did not explain the delay in retaining counsel or the steps taken to determine the identity of the responsible driver.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was therefore dismissed, although the existing defendants were removed from the action.

The accused was sentenced after a jury conviction on eight counts of tax evasion under the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act arising from failure to report approximately $1.5 million in income from a foreign exchange trading education business and failure to remit GST between 2003 and 2006.

The total tax evaded was approximately $475,000.

The court emphasized that general deterrence is the primary sentencing objective for tax evasion offences because the integrity of the taxation system depends on voluntary compliance.

Despite the offender’s lack of prior record and personal hardships following the charges, the court found significant aggravating factors including deliberate concealment of income and breach of trust regarding GST funds.

A custodial sentence was imposed along with a fine of 150% of the taxes evaded.

The applicant, who was being tried for assault in the Ontario Court of Justice, brought a mid-trial application in the Superior Court of Justice seeking to remove the trial judge due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant argued the trial judge was partial to the Crown, permitted a witness to abuse the accused, and improperly curtailed cross-examination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the trial judge's interventions were aimed at ensuring all necessary evidence was before the court for the unrepresented accused's benefit, and that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required for mid-trial removal of a judge.

The moving party brought an application to vary a prior child support order that required payment based on imputed income.

She sought a reduction in support due to significantly decreased income and requested retroactive adjustments for several years.

The court accepted evidence of reduced earnings and found a material change in circumstances under the Child Support Guidelines.

Child support was varied for 2008–2010, set to zero for 2011 and 2012 due to negative income, and terminated when the child reached the age of majority and was no longer dependent.

Arrears were ordered to be recalculated by the Family Responsibility Office based on the revised amounts.