Gordon D. Lemon

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The court, acting as gatekeeper, reviewed the qualifications and reports of seven proposed expert witnesses.

While the defence conceded the admissibility of most experts, the court ruled on the scope of their evidence.

The court accepted experts in DNA analysis, photogrammetry, gunshot residue, and firearms examination.

However, the court expressed concerns regarding the clarity of reports and the current qualifications of two experts in phone analysis and phone functionality, requiring further clarification or a voir dire before their evidence could be admitted.

Following a successful motion for child and spousal support where income was imputed to the respondent husband, the applicant wife sought costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules costs framework, noting the husband's unreasonable delay in disclosure and his failure to make a reasonable settlement offer.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,500 against the husband and $500 against the husband's brother, who had intervened unnecessarily.

The applicant sought costs of $27,750 on a substantial indemnity basis following a motion where she successfully proved the respondent breached a prior court order, though she was unsuccessful on other claims.

The respondent sought costs of $8,458.05, claiming success on a contested adjournment.

The court found the respondent was not entitled to costs as he was unsuccessful on the principal issue of his breach.

However, the court reduced the applicant's costs claim, noting over-lawyering, unnecessary case law, and excessive costs submissions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $10,000.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings in his motion to change child support, or alternatively, for security for costs.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and owed significant support arrears.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the respondent had produced sufficient disclosure to proceed to trial and that triable issues existed.

The court also dismissed the request for security for costs, noting it would be extraordinary to order security against a party seeking relief due to an inability to pay support.

The accused was tried on four counts of sexual assault arising from an intimate partner relationship between 2010 and 2012.

The court accepted that delayed disclosure of sexual assault does not, by itself, justify an adverse credibility finding, but held that the complainant's specific explanations for delay were inconsistent with other evidence.

The court also found the corroborative value of photographs, recordings, texts, emails, and a rebuttal witness to be limited or unpersuasive.

Viewing the evidence as a whole, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to reliability and credibility and entered acquittals on all counts.

The applicant's motion for an interim order to sell a jointly owned home was previously dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $9,166, while the applicant argued no costs should be payable.

Applying the costs framework under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent was successful and entitled to costs.

The court fixed the costs at $5,000, noting the applicant's motion was not unreasonable and the respondent's bill included work unrelated to the motion.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that police lacked lawful authority to search cell phones and intercept conversations.

The court dismissed the application, with written reasons to follow, to allow counsel to prepare for the upcoming trial.

The plaintiff, Bisquip Leasing Corporation (Bishop), brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant, Coco Paving Inc., for outstanding payments for construction services.

Bishop initially claimed $151,350.12, which was reduced to $67,001.39 after a partial payment by Coco.

Coco opposed the motion, arguing for equitable set-off, statutory set-off under the Construction Act, and that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to related counterclaims concerning a deficient sanitary line and liability for a gas line strike.

The court found that the contracts were separate, rejected Coco's equitable set-off defense, and dismissed the counterclaim regarding the sanitary line without prejudice.

The motion for summary judgment was granted for Bishop for $67,001.39, with the court concluding that this would simplify the action and lead to a fair adjudication, despite ongoing related litigation.

The applicant sought an extension of time to perfect and file an appeal of interim and final orders pertaining to child custody and support.

The court applied the five-factor test for extending time to appeal, considering the applicant's intention, the length of delay, the explanation for delay, the merits of the appeal, and potential prejudice to the respondent.

Despite the applicant's stated intention to appeal, the court found the delay substantial and the explanations, including medical and financial difficulties, insufficient, particularly given the applicant's engagement in other legal proceedings.

The court also determined the appeal lacked merit, noting the unlikelihood of a custody change and the applicant's inability to procure necessary transcripts.

Consequently, the motion for an extension was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the underlying appeal.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal and child support.

The core issue was determining the respondent husband's income, as he is a lawyer who deducted personal legal fees and other unreasonable expenses from his business income.

The court imputed the husband's income at $248,356 by adding back these deductions and grossing them up.

The court ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support of $2,300 per month and interim child support of $459 per month, leaving retroactive claims and final determinations for trial.

The applicant sought various orders, including a declaration that the respondent was in breach of a prior disclosure order, imposition of sanctions, a civil restraining order, interim disbursements, an advance on equalization, and life insurance designation.

The court found the respondent in willful breach of the disclosure order for failing to provide a business valuation and income analysis.

As a sanction, the respondent was ordered to make significant payments to the applicant.

The requests for a restraining order and advance payments were dismissed without prejudice due to conflicting evidence and insufficient information, respectively.

The life insurance designation request was adjourned.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Guelph's decision to replace a one-lane heritage bridge with a two-lane bridge on Niska Road, alleging contravention of section 24 of the Planning Act and non-conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.

The application also alleged bad faith.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, dismissed the application, finding that the City's interpretation and application of its policies were not unreasonable and that the process was carried out according to the rule of law.

The applicant sought an order for the immediate sale of a jointly owned home, division of net proceeds, and agreement on a listing agent.

The respondent opposed, arguing that a sale would cause hardship amounting to oppression, particularly for their 14-year-old son, and that the applicant had not contributed significantly to the home since separation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had demonstrated sufficient reason to refuse the sale based on oppression, and ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite the resolution of the property dispute.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal to the Divisional Court after her appeal was quashed by the Court of Appeal for being in the wrong jurisdiction.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought an order declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion, noting that the Court of Appeal had already refused to transfer the file.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that the appellant's confusion regarding appellate jurisdiction did not make her a vexatious litigant.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal to the Divisional Court and to transfer the proceeding, after the Court of Appeal quashed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to have the appellant declared a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the appellant's motion, noting the Court of Appeal had already dismissed her request to transfer the file.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion, finding the appellant's conduct, while confusing, did not meet the threshold of a vexatious litigant.

The respondent, Mr. Kay, brought a motion to set aside a divorce judgment granted to the applicant, Ms. Akomani, on April 9, 2018.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment, considering promptness, explanation for default, arguable defence, potential prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

It was found that Ms. Akomani obtained the divorce without full disclosure, potentially by mistake or fraud, regarding Mr. Kay's whereabouts and his prior motion to extend time.

Mr. Kay acted promptly and demonstrated an arguable defence regarding the validity of the marriage.

The court granted Mr. Kay's application, setting aside the divorce judgment and allowing him to file an Answer denying the marriage.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicant's (Wendy Crane) application.

The respondents, Lesly Metzger and Nigel Cason, sought costs.

The court fixed costs at $30,059.67 to be paid by the applicant to Mr. Cason within 30 days.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the respondents' complete success, the applicant's unreasonable conduct, and the complexity and importance of the litigation.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant, Ms. Kang, was largely successful in interpreting a consent order, while the respondent, Mr. Kang, was found to be in breach.

Ms. Kang sought substantial indemnity costs, which Mr. Kang opposed, also seeking his own costs.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules, found Ms. Kang entitled to costs due to her success and Mr. Kang's unreasonable conduct and failure to beat his offer to settle.

Costs were fixed at $12,742.33 payable by Mr. Kang to Ms. Kang, to be paid from funds held in trust.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed an application due to the applicants' failure to advance the matter.

This endorsement addresses the respondent's request for costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, complexity, importance of issues, and the applicants' conduct.

The court found the motion to dismiss was straightforward but the underlying application involved serious unproven allegations against the respondent.

Given the respondent's success and the nature of the allegations, the court awarded fixed costs to the respondent on a joint and several basis.

The accused, Jaime Hodge, was convicted by a jury of importing 1.34 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The court considered sentencing principles, including general deterrence as the overriding factor for cocaine importation, and the established sentencing range of three to five years for similar amounts.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of prior record, compliance with release terms, and a "horrific" background involving abuse and family trauma.

Aggravating factors included the sophisticated concealment and high purity of the cocaine.

The court gave limited weight to Gladue factors due to insufficient evidence of their contextual impact on the accused's moral culpability.

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment, with credit for one month of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 35 months, along with a 10-year and life weapons prohibition and a DNA order.