Gordon D. Lemon

The defendant, Nima Alamouti, was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant, M.P., by anal intercourse without consent.

The trial involved conflicting accounts of the events, particularly regarding the nature of the sexual activity and the complainant's consent.

The court considered the credibility of both the complainant and the defendant, as well as corroborating evidence from a third-party witness.

Ultimately, the court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the defendant's reaction, leading to a reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the applicant's motion for the sale of a home and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent, having been successful, sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant, who was unsuccessful, also filed a costs outline.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the respondent entitled to costs and fixed them at $10,000, rejecting the respondent's higher claim and the applicant's implicit request for costs.

The payment of costs was deferred until the trial or other resolution of the file.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a motion for security for costs brought by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 507 (PCC 507) and supported by Larlyn Property Management Ltd. Precision Tree Care Ltd. (Precision), the successful party on the original motion, sought costs.

The court applied Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as the result, complexity, and the parties' conduct.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00, payable by PCC 507 to Precision, noting that Precision was successful and the matter was moderately complex.

Larlyn was not awarded costs and was not ordered to pay costs, as it took no position on the original motion.

The court also admonished counsel for not adhering to page limits for submissions and for attempting to re-argue the underlying motion.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the granting of State Farm's motion for summary judgment, which dismissed the action.

State Farm sought $16,830.23 in costs, while the plaintiffs proposed $10,000.00.

The court considered the factors outlined in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, counsel's experience, expected costs, amount claimed, complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court noted concerns with State Farm's Bill of Costs, specifically the involvement of multiple lawyers and potential duplication of work, but also considered the plaintiffs' rejection of a $1,000 settlement offer.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $15,000.00, payable by the plaintiffs to State Farm.

The plaintiff, Devlan Construction Ltd., sought costs after successfully obtaining summary judgment against the defendant, 2345171 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Guelph Medical Imaging, for $105,599.74.

Devlan requested costs of $61,158.24 on a substantial indemnity basis or $50,965.19 on a partial indemnity scale.

Guelph Imaging proposed fixed costs of $30,000.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the result, counsel experience, expected costs, amount claimed/recovered, complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court found that Guelph Imaging's arguments, though eventually withdrawn, required Devlan to provide detailed accounting.

The court fixed costs at $60,000.00 in favour of Devlan Construction Ltd.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful custody and access motion brought by the applicant, Muhammad Muddasir.

The applicant sought fixed costs of $6,116.77, which the respondent, Asfayeen Iqbal, opposed.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court affirmed the presumption of costs for the successful party.

Considering the applicant's offer to settle, the emergency nature of the motion, and the reasonableness of the legal fees, the court found the applicant's costs request justified.

The respondent's attempt to re-argue the original motion was deemed irrelevant to the costs issue.

This endorsement concerns costs following the setting aside of a Mareva injunction against the defendant, Ms. Chang, due to the plaintiff's principal's failure to make full, fair, and frank disclosure.

Ms. Chang sought substantial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff proposed a significantly lower amount.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the defendant's success on the injunction motion and the plaintiff's principal's inappropriate conduct.

Costs were fixed at $20,000, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiff corporation and its principal, Mr. Deng, due to his misconduct and to prevent Ms. Chang, a minority shareholder, from effectively paying her own costs.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of Melissa Dawn Schuurman's motion for the release of garnished funds.

Jennifer Laura Schuurman, the successful party, sought costs of $6,043.81.

The court applied principles from the Family Law Rules, including the presumption of costs for the successful party, and considered factors such as the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and Melissa's limited ability to pay.

While Jennifer was successful, the court noted Melissa's position was not unreasonable despite being wrong in law.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs payable by Melissa to Jennifer at $5,000.00.

Massud Nawabi was convicted by a jury of importing 4.04 kilograms of cocaine.

The court addressed two factual issues for sentencing: continuity of the cocaine and its total weight/purity.

The court found continuity proven for the entire 4.04 kg despite an unsealed package incident, and affirmed that weight is not adjusted for purity.

Considering general deterrence as the overriding factor for cocaine importation, and mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and remorse, the court imposed a sentence of seven years in custody, along with ancillary orders for DNA samples and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

A recommendation was made for the sentence to be served in Quebec.

This costs endorsement followed motions for productions and undertakings where both parties were partially successful and partially unsuccessful.

The court declined to award costs, finding that neither side was truly successful and both had been unreasonable in bringing the motions without prior attempts to resolve production issues.

The court emphasized that such conduct should not be rewarded.

The applicant accused brought an application for the production of occurrence reports.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was not satisfied that the requested records should be produced, with written reasons to follow.

The moving party brought a motion to release garnished funds back to her for living expenses and to change custody of the children.

The responding party brought a cross-motion for directions and substituted service.

The court dismissed the request to return the garnished funds, noting that costs orders must be enforced and the funds should be released to the responding party.

The court also dismissed the request for a change of custody as premature.

The responding party's request for email service was granted on consent.

The applicant brought a motion to confirm the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, specifically regarding mortgage, taxes, and home insurance payments made by the respondent post-separation.

The respondent failed to provide proper accounting despite previous court orders and warnings.

The court confirmed the applicant's acknowledged obligation of $20,642.28 to the respondent and ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant $1,373.64 for payments she made after his default.

The court also awarded the applicant $6,500.00 in costs due to the respondent's uncooperative conduct.

Ms. Hung brought a motion seeking to have Mr. Willis found in contempt, to produce documents pursuant to an earlier order, and to pay funds into court.

The contempt motion was withdrawn due to procedural issues, and the request for payment into court was dismissed as res judicata.

However, Mr. Willis was ordered to produce documents he had previously been ordered to provide.

Both parties sought costs for the motion.

The court found Ms. Hung was successful on the core issue of document production, which Mr. Willis had unreasonably resisted.

Mr. Willis's arguments were deemed without merit and unreasonable, and his conduct was considered contemptuous in a practical sense.

Ms. Hung was awarded costs of $5,650.00.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligence and breach of contract, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by real estate agents regarding a right of first refusal in a 2008 property sale.

The court applied the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002, and found that the plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, ought to have known of her claim against the real estate agents before June 12, 2013, more than two years before commencing the action in June 2015.

Consequently, the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The moving party brought a motion to change a 2012 spousal support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The moving party's income had significantly decreased from an imputed $50,000 to approximately $10,900, while the responding party's income was nearly three times higher.

The court found a material change in circumstances and provisionally varied the order, terminating spousal support and fixing arrears at $5,000 payable at $200 per month, subject to confirmation by a Massachusetts court.

The plaintiff, Devlan Construction Ltd., moved for summary judgment against the defendant, 2345171 Ontario Inc. (Guelph Medical Imaging), for outstanding construction costs related to tenant improvements, including alleged extras.

The defendant disputed authorization for the extras, the accounting, alleged deficiencies, and the profit margin.

Applying the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework, the court found that authorization for the extras was clearly given, dismissed the deficiency claims due to lack of pleading and evidence, and resolved the accounting and profit issues in favour of the plaintiff.

Summary judgment was granted for $105,599.74 plus pre-judgment interest, and funds paid into court to lift a construction lien were ordered to be paid out to the plaintiff.

The defendant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 507, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Precision Tree Care Ltd., in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff claimed for tree trimming services, alleging verbal authorization for work significantly exceeding the initial estimate.

The defendant argued the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious based on the evidence provided, including records of creditor enforcement and lack of income.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's case was not "plainly devoid of merit" a lower threshold for impecunious plaintiffs.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed.

Ms. Chang moved to set aside a Mareva injunction previously granted against her, alleging that the plaintiff, Maxjoyce Express Inc., failed to provide full, fair, and frank disclosure of material facts during the ex parte application for the injunction.

The court found that Maxjoyce's representative, Mr. Deng, intentionally omitted and misrepresented several material facts, including his own unauthorized withdrawals of funds, Ms. Chang's directorship, and her explicit refusal to consent to fund transfers.

The court concluded that these were not mere 'sloppy' errors but material facts that should have been disclosed.

Consequently, the Mareva injunction was set aside.

The applicant sought to enforce various terms of a consent order dated June 15, 2018, concerning equalization payments, child support arrears, section 7 expenses, and spousal support arrears.

The matrimonial home had been sold, and proceeds were held in trust, but the parties disagreed on the amounts to be disbursed.

The respondent disputed the calculation of post-separation advances and interest, and attempted to renegotiate the agreement through a release.

The court clarified the terms of the consent order, accepting the applicant's calculations for advances and ordering the immediate release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home, including accrued interest, to satisfy the outstanding obligations.

The respondent was found in breach of the consent order, and costs submissions were ordered.