Gordon D. Lemon

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent spouse to execute documents transferring the liquor licence of a family-owned pub to her.

The business interest had previously been ordered transferred to the applicant pursuant to an interim order under s. 12(b) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent argued he remained the corporate shareholder and proposed instead renewing the licence in the corporation’s name.

The court held that the prior order vested the business interest in the applicant and required compliance, and that the statutory framework under the Liquor Licence Act required transfer of the licence to reflect the change in control of the business.

The respondent was ordered to sign the transfer documents and pay costs.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring him to pay full table child support despite a separation agreement providing for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The trial judge had concluded that the father did not meet the 40 percent parenting time threshold under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and ordered full guideline support.

On appeal, the court found there was no evidentiary basis for concluding the father had less than 40 percent parenting time and that the separation agreement provided for equal time.

The appellate court held the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly set aside the parties’ agreement without reasons.

The order was set aside and the parties remained bound by their separation agreement.

The moving defendants sought to set aside an earlier ex parte order that imposed a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on several properties and included broad freezing and disclosure orders arising from allegations of a fraudulent real estate scheme.

The court held that a CPL may only be granted where the proceeding places an interest in land in question under s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Because the plaintiff’s claim sought only damages and did not assert a proprietary interest in the lands, the CPLs registered against several properties were discharged.

However, the court declined to set aside the remaining provisions of the earlier order, including asset-freezing and disclosure provisions, due to insufficient evidentiary record and the parties’ mutual delay in advancing the litigation.

The plaintiff’s cross-motion, including requests for summary judgment and bankruptcy-related relief, was adjourned sine die except for a refinancing-related request which was dismissed.

Following an earlier endorsement ordering interim spousal support, the parties sought clarification on the tax treatment of payments, the commencement date for monthly support, and the termination date of a $4,000 dividend payment historically paid through the respondent’s company.

The court declined to account for tax consequences in calculating arrears or support, stating that tax treatment is a matter for the Canada Revenue Agency.

The court clarified that the $20,000 monthly interim spousal support obligation was retroactive to November 18, 2010 and payable on the 18th day of each month.

The court further confirmed that the historical $4,000 monthly dividend payment was intended as a temporary measure and would end prior to May 1, 2012.

The respondent was credited for support payments already made when calculating arrears.

The parties disputed their date of separation, the validity of a separation agreement, equalization, and spousal support.

The applicant husband claimed separation occurred in 2006, while the respondent wife claimed 2000.

The court found the parties separated in 2000 and lived separate lives under the same roof thereafter.

The court set aside a 2000 separation agreement, finding the husband was only shown the signature page and the agreement was unconscionable.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $57,797.33 and indefinite spousal support of $1,500 per month to the disabled husband.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, a substantial advance on equalization, interpretation of a prior order regarding dividend payments, and a finding that the respondent breached an earlier court order.

The court applied the test for advances on equalization and held that the applicant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable need for additional funds and a minimum equalization entitlement capable of supporting the requested advance.

The court imputed the respondent’s income at $463,000 and ordered interim spousal support of $20,000 per month retroactive to separation.

The court also interpreted a prior order requiring continuation of historical payments to include a $4,000 monthly dividend payment and ordered arrears to be paid, but declined to impose penalties for breach.

The plaintiff sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a commercial property allegedly transferred through corporate entities to defeat enforcement of a judgment debt.

The defendants opposed the CPL and moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the claims relating to the property.

The court applied the summary judgment framework articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and held that the documentary record permitted full appreciation of the issues without a trial.

Although suspicious circumstances existed, the plaintiff failed to establish essential elements of a fraudulent conveyance, including lack of consideration and knowledge by the transferee.

The property was heavily encumbered and had negative equity at the time of transfer, and statutory and equitable claims were either unsupported or barred.

Partial summary judgment was granted and the CPL request dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to strike portions of the defendant's affidavit filed in support of a summary judgment motion, arguing the paragraphs disclosed without prejudice settlement communications.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the communications were simply an accounting reconciliation of agreed and disputed invoices, rather than privileged settlement negotiations involving a compromise of positions.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order striking his claim for assault and Charter breaches against customs officials.

The deputy judge had struck the claim on the basis that there was no medical evidence of injuries and the officers acted reasonably.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that the deputy judge erred by applying the test for summary judgment rather than the test for a motion to strike.

The court held that credibility issues and the assessment of evidence must be left for trial, and reinstated the claim with leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a costs order of $32,307.14 made following a three-day trial under the Simplified Rules where both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed.

The plaintiff argued the costs were disproportionate and inconsistent with similar cases.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's order and noting that the trial judge was alive to the issue of proportionality.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the respondent bank and granting the bank's counterclaim for $10,000 on an outstanding student loan.

The appellant argued he was not in default and was eligible for interest relief and capitalization.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had admitted to being in default during the trial and had already exhausted his two permitted interest capitalizations under the applicable regulations.