Gordon D. Lemon

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order against the Tecumseh defendants for failing to produce a representative for examination for discovery as per a prior court order.

The defendants argued that their designated representative, Mr. Goldin, was unable to attend due to a recent cancer diagnosis.

The court found that while the order was clear and known to the defendants, the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' non-compliance was intentional, given Mr. Goldin's medical difficulties and the defendants' subsequent efforts to propose alternative solutions.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion for child and spousal support.

The respondent party sought costs of $1,947.28.

The applicant party failed to respond to the costs submissions and was found to have been slow in providing materials during the original motion, adding to the process's time and cost.

The court found the respondent party was successful and entitled to costs, but the applicant party's conduct, while wrong and slow, did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The requested costs were deemed reasonable.

The court ordered the applicant party to pay costs of $1,947.28, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as they were incurred for child support.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought leave to cross-examine three police officers (D/Cst Brian Welsh, Julie Meier, and Constable Michael Ryder) in relation to a pre-trial motion to exclude electronic evidence obtained from a vehicle's infotainment system.

The defence argued the warrant for this evidence was invalid due to alleged s. 8 Charter breaches, material non-disclosure, or misleading information in the Information to Obtain (ITO) the warrant, particularly concerning a prior warrantless search.

The Crown agreed to Welsh's cross-examination but opposed Meier and Ryder.

The court granted leave to cross-examine all three officers, finding that the defence had met the "reasonable likelihood" standard that the cross-examination would assist in determining whether the issuing justice was materially misled by the ITO, thereby undermining the warrant process.

Following an interim order requiring the applicant mother to return the children to Guelph after a unilateral move to Ottawa, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the respondent father was the successful party, as the mother's move was unreasonable and she was ordered to return the children.

Applying the principles from Mattina v. Mattina and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $15,000.

Fatigue Fracture Technology LLC (FFT) abandoned its proceeding against Camtac Manufacturing Inc. Camtac sought substantial costs for the abandoned proceeding ($73,119.59) and additional costs for the motion to determine costs ($14,000).

FFT conceded a lower amount for the abandoned proceeding ($7,500), which the court ordered.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that costs motion.

FFT sought $3,500 for the costs motion, while Camtac sought $5,000 (or $14,000 orally).

The court found FFT successful on the costs of the motion, noting that the issue was not whether FFT would pay costs, but what amount.

The court awarded FFT $3,500 for the costs of the motion, to be set off against the $7,500 ordered in the main proceeding.

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment in favour of the respondent, Mr. Delmoro, where the applicant, Ms. Thomson, was ordered to pay child support and her claims were dismissed.

Mr. Delmoro sought fixed costs of $17,151.72, while Ms. Thomson proposed $6,936.33.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the presumption of costs for the successful party.

Ms. Thomson's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with interim orders, failure to withdraw a meritless claim, and lack of settlement offers.

The court found Mr. Delmoro's requested costs reasonable and fixed them at $17,151.72, with $15,000 specifically allocated to child support enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion seeking standing to challenge the search and seizure of electronic data (GPS tracklogs and a phone contact list) extracted from a rental vehicle's infotainment system.

The Crown argued the accused lacked standing because the vehicle was obtained under false pretenses and the phone belonged to a third party.

The court applied the Marakah framework and found that the accused had a direct interest and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the electronic data, as it had the potential to reveal intimate biographical details.

The accused was granted standing to argue the Section 8 Charter breach.

The defence moved for disclosure of legal advice provided to the Guelph Police Service, arguing that the police implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by referencing legal advice in an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant, thereby putting their good faith in issue.

The Crown and Guelph Police Service denied waiver.

The court distinguished the facts from R. v. Campbell, finding no illegal police activity and that the references to legal advice were part of a narrative for full disclosure, not an attempt to justify illegal activity.

The court held that the police did not implicitly waive privilege, and the defence's request for disclosure was dismissed.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion for disclosure of communications between the investigating officer and the Crown attorney regarding an infotainment system warrant, following the Crown's filing of an affidavit by the officer.

The defence argued the materials were relevant to the officer's credibility and the validity of the warrant.

The Crown opposed, arguing the request was overly broad and a "fishing expedition." The court, following an in camera review of the requested documents, ordered the disclosure of specific emails and a volume of documents deemed relevant to the officer's credibility.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude Crown evidence due to alleged s. 8 Charter breaches.

In response to an affidavit filed by the investigating officer, the applicant sought disclosure of all recorded communications between the officer and the Crown Attorney regarding a warrant.

The Crown did not object to providing the materials to the judge for review.

The court ordered the Crown to provide the requested information for the judge's review pursuant to R. v. Dixon and R. v. Chu.

This case addresses the valuation of a husband's pension and the method of equalization payment following a second separation after a reconciliation.

The primary issue was whether a 2002 separation agreement, which included a specific release of the wife's interest in the husband's pension, remained effective despite a subsequent reconciliation and a clause stating the agreement would become void after 90 days of cohabitation for reconciliation.

The court found that the specific release of the pension interest survived the reconciliation, limiting the wife's claim to the pension's increase in value from the date of reconciliation to the final separation.

The court also ordered the equalization payment to be made in cash rather than a pension rollover, considering the wife's financial needs and the husband's liquidity.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion compelling the respondent to produce outstanding financial undertakings, answers under advisement, refused questions, and a business valuation.

The respondent argued for no costs due to mixed results.

The court found the applicant largely successful, as the ordered productions would likely fulfill her needs, and deemed the respondent's failure to provide financial production unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant full costs of $14,138.74, payable within 30 days, finding her counsel's bill reasonable given the complexity and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following an unsuccessful motion by Ms. Cannone-Haddad to strike Mr. Haddad's pleadings or for security for costs.

Mr. Haddad, the successful party, sought $16,861.86 in costs on a full recovery basis.

Ms. Cannone-Haddad argued for no costs or an offset against child support arrears.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, acknowledged Mr. Haddad's entitlement to costs but found the requested amount excessive and not warranting full recovery.

Considering the parties' financial difficulties, Mr. Haddad's child support arrears, and the necessity of Ms. Cannone-Haddad's initial motion to compel disclosure, the court awarded Mr. Haddad $5,000 in costs, payable after the resolution of outstanding issues.

The applicant, Joan Thomson, sought spousal support and a declaration of unjust enrichment.

The respondent, Thomas Victor Delmoro, sought child support.

The parties, who cohabited for 27 years and have two children, separated in 2014.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple court orders for disclosure and did not attend trial, leading to the dismissal of her claims.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 per year to the applicant for child support purposes, based on her earning history and failure to provide financial information or explanation for unemployment.

Retroactive child support was ordered from April 1, 2014, and ongoing support for the remaining child, along with a contribution to Section 7 expenses.

The applicant, facing charges related to a serious motor vehicle collision, brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging his s. 8 rights were violated when a police officer smelled his breath while he was receiving medical treatment in a hospital.

He sought to excise this observation and his admission of 'drinking' from the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for his blood samples, and to exclude the blood evidence under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed the application, finding no s. 8 breach occurred in the hospital setting.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the impugned evidence were excised, the remaining facts in the ITO—including excessive speed, the nature of the collision, and the presence of intoxicants at the scene—provided ample grounds to issue the warrant.

The applicant sought interim custody of the children and permission to relocate their ordinary residence from Guelph to Ottawa.

The respondent opposed the relocation and sought joint custody with primary residence in Guelph.

The court granted interim primary residence to the applicant but denied the relocation, finding it not in the children's best interests.

The judge noted the applicant's "self-help" move to Ottawa without notice and the negative impact on the children's relationship with the respondent.

The order stipulated that if the applicant failed to return to Guelph, the children's primary residence would shift to the respondent.

The defendants moved to enforce a settlement agreement, arguing that a binding agreement had been reached on January 16, 2018, for $120,000, inclusive of interest and legal fees, payable in monthly installments.

The plaintiff, Worldwide Security Ltd., opposed, attempting to add a term for 5% annual interest on the declining balance.

The court found that a binding agreement was reached prior to the plaintiff's proposed amendment, with no further terms to be negotiated.

The defendants' motion to enforce the settlement was granted, and the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and claims against two individual defendants were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Raja Dosanjh, during a police interview in a first-degree murder case.

The defence put the Crown to its burden of proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, without raising specific issues regarding promises, threats, or oppressive circumstances.

The court conducted a contextual analysis, considering factors such as the accused's demeanor, understanding of rights, and the absence of inducements, oppression, lack of operating mind, or trickery.

The court found that the accused voluntarily chose to speak to the officer and that the statements were admissible.

The respondent, Camtac, moved for costs of an abandoned application brought by the applicant, Fatigue.

Fatigue had sought to enforce letters rogatory for patent litigation in the U.S. Camtac sought $73,119.59 in costs for the abandoned application and $14,000 for the costs motion itself.

Fatigue conceded $7,500 for the abandoned application.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found Camtac was entitled to costs but deemed the hours spent and rates charged by Camtac's Canadian and U.S. counsel excessive and unreasonable for an application that did not proceed past the notice stage.

The court awarded Camtac $7,500 in costs for the withdrawn application and interim motion, payable by Fatigue.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from his questioning.

The applicant also sought orders requiring the respondent to obtain an appraisal of the matrimonial home, a business valuation, and an income report.

The court ordered the respondent to fulfill the undertakings and answer the questions, noting his obligation to provide accurate valuations for his assets.

The respondent was ordered to produce the real estate opinion he relied on and to retain a Chartered Business Valuator at his own expense.

The request for an income report was dismissed as disproportionate at this stage.