Gordon D. Lemon

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking interim child support and section 7 special expenses for two dependent children following the parties’ separation.

The parties disputed whether additional income should be imputed to the payor parent, including RRSP withdrawals and alleged overtime income.

The court declined to determine imputed income on the limited interim record, noting the issue was properly reserved for trial given the upcoming trial date.

Interim support was instead based on the payor parent’s acknowledged 2014 income.

The court ordered monthly child support and section 7 contributions effective August 1, 2015, without prejudice to retroactive adjustments at trial.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim stay and variation of prior final support orders, including reductions to child support and termination of spousal support pending determination of a motion to change.

The court reviewed the test for interim variation of a final order, requiring exceptional circumstances such as undue hardship, incongruity, or pressing urgency.

The court found the evidentiary record inadequate, noting the absence of sworn evidence from the applicant and reliance on inadmissible double hearsay.

The applicant’s requests were dismissed.

The responding party obtained limited relief permitting issuance of the children’s passports without the applicant’s consent but was otherwise denied broader relief including striking pleadings.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a default judgment obtained against them in a civil action alleging fraud, conspiracy, oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Applying the principles governing motions to set aside default judgments, the court considered whether the motion was brought promptly, whether there was a plausible explanation for the default, and whether the defendants had an arguable defence on the merits, along with prejudice and the interests of justice.

The court found the defendants failed to provide a credible explanation for their failure to defend after service and had not demonstrated a substantive defence to the pleaded allegations.

The draft statement of defence contained only general denials and no evidentiary response to the serious allegations underlying the judgment.

In the absence of an arguable defence and adequate explanation for the default, the interests of justice did not favour setting aside the judgment.

The father brought a motion to stay a final order making the child a Crown ward without access pending appeal and sought ongoing disclosure of society records.

The court accepted that the disclosure request was consented to and focused on whether the final order should be stayed.

Applying the stay test from appellate authority, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried on appeal, and that maintaining supervised access pending the appeal would better serve the child’s best interests.

The court concluded that continuation of access would preserve the relationship while the appeal was pending and would not prejudice the child’s placement.

The motion to stay the order pending appeal was granted and access continued on the previous terms.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and accessory after the fact, the accused brought a motion seeking further disclosure relating to certified translations of Punjabi-language recordings and interviews relied upon by the Crown.

The defence identified material discrepancies between police, Crown-certified, and defence-certified translations of a key intercepted conversation and sought documentation relating to the commissioning, preparation, and certification of translations.

The court found that the requested materials had a sufficient nexus to the reliability of the translations relevant to a proposed s. 9 Canada Evidence Act application under R. v. K.G.B. The judge ordered limited disclosure of communications, requests, drafts, and information concerning the preparation and certification of specific transcripts prepared by a particular translator.

Broader disclosure requests were withdrawn without prejudice.

The responding parent brought a motion seeking permission to travel internationally with the parties’ two children without the other parent’s consent.

The moving parent opposed the request, asserting a risk the children would not be returned to Ontario.

The court found insufficient reliable evidence to support the alleged risk of non‑return and noted the responding parent’s long-standing ties to Canada and the children’s established residence there.

The court also considered that the destination country was a Hague Convention signatory and that maintaining contact with extended family was in the children’s best interests.

The motion was granted, permitting the temporary two‑week trip subject to communication and disclosure conditions.

The Crown sought admission of statements made by the accused to Canada Border Services Agency officers during a secondary customs examination following arrival at Toronto airport.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused’s rights under ss. 7 and 10 of the Charter, and should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court held that the questioning at customs secondary constituted a routine border examination and that the accused’s statements prior to arrest were voluntary and admissible.

However, after the accused was arrested, officers failed to properly advise him of his right to counsel of choice and delayed facilitating access to counsel.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court excluded all statements made after the arrest due to the Charter breach.

During a jury trial for second‑degree murder and accessory after the fact, the Crown sought a preliminary ruling regarding disputed Punjabi-to-English translations of intercepted communications.

The Crown requested that the court appoint a neutral third‑party translator to resolve discrepancies between the Crown and defence transcripts or, alternatively, determine that the Crown translation was accurate before addressing a defence disclosure application.

The court declined to order a court-appointed translator, emphasizing that calling its own witnesses should occur only rarely and with extreme caution.

Given material discrepancies between translations and incomplete argument on the defence disclosure application, the court directed that submissions continue on the defence request for further disclosure relating to the translations.

Following a finding of oppression against the respondent condominium corporation and an award of $30,000 in general damages, the applicant sought costs ranging from $34,138.90 to $41,413.28.

The respondent argued for costs fixed at $10,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the applicant's success but also criticizing the applicant's excessive damages claim, unreasonable settlement offer, and failure to adhere to page limits for costs submissions.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded 12 months' salary for wrongful dismissal, the court held a further hearing to determine two issues.

First, the court ruled that the plaintiff's long-term disability benefits must be deducted from his wrongful dismissal damages to prevent double recovery, as the employer was responsible for paying both.

Second, the court ordered the plaintiff to produce redacted dockets in support of his $208,000 bill of costs, finding that the detailed bill of costs alone was insufficient 'other evidence' under Rule 57.01(5).

In this family costs endorsement following a dispute over early retirement, child support, and spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award after both parties delivered offers to settle.

Although success was divided, the responding party on the original application was substantially more successful on the central issue of ongoing spousal support and obtained a result more favourable than his offer.

The court applied the Family Law Rules governing presumptive costs, settlement incentives, and reasonableness of quantum, while declining to award a blank cheque notwithstanding the potential full indemnity consequences of the offer.

A costs award of $45,000 was ordered against the applicant.

On a motion arising within long-running debt and fraudulent conveyance litigation, the moving party sought to cross-examine responding parties on affidavit materials that had already been the subject of earlier cross-examinations on a prior summary judgment motion.

The court held that, although it had serious doubts about the utility of renewed questioning and considered the issues largely unchanged, the moving party should not be barred outright from a focused further cross-examination given the different framing of the new motion.

The court therefore allowed limited cross-examinations of two responding parties, capped at three hours each, and restricted the scope for further disputes over undertakings.

Costs were left to the motions judge hearing the summary judgment motion.

The applicant brought an oppression application arising from prolonged noise and vibration from elevators and mechanical equipment affecting a condominium unit.

The court held that the condominium corporation failed to adequately repair and maintain the common elements after years of investigation with little meaningful action, and that its reliance on an alleged by-law issue concerning a converted room was a red herring.

Applying the oppression framework, the court found the applicant's reasonable expectations were breached and that the respondent's conduct amounted to oppression, unfair prejudice, and unfair disregard.

The court awarded $30,000 in damages, dismissed the records-production and $150 fee claims, and remained seized to supervise remedial steps.

The applicant sought a Rowbotham order staying a prosecution for importing opium until the Crown funded counsel for trial.

The court accepted that Legal Aid had been denied and that counsel was necessary for a fair trial given the seriousness of the charge, the legal issues, and the applicant's limited English.

However, the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he could not afford private counsel or that he had exhausted other available means, including assistance from family or borrowing.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to a renewed application supported by fuller financial evidence.

The defendant municipality brought a motion seeking an order that the third-party insurer defend it against all claims made by the plaintiffs arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident during a snowstorm.

The municipality argued the claims pertained to winter maintenance, for which it was an additional insured under the contractor's policy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs pleaded independent claims against the municipality, such as negligent road design, which fell outside the scope of the insurance policy.

The insurer was only required to defend the municipality with respect to claims insured for the contractor.

The accused applied to exclude evidence of a marijuana grow operation seized during the execution of a search warrant, arguing there was no reasonable basis for its issuance.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) and found that the affiant police officer had misled the issuing justice, lied about the accused's criminal record, and provided unreliable information from a confidential informant.

Applying the Garofoli step-six review, the court concluded the un-excised ITO could not support the warrant and that the officer's conduct was subversive to the prior authorization process.

The search warrant was quashed.

The applicant trucking company sought to terminate a factoring agreement with the respondent and requested a buy-out statement, a release letter, and the discharge of a PPSA registration.

The respondent refused, arguing it owned the purchased invoices absolutely and had no obligation to sell them back.

The court held that the PPSA applied to the transaction and, pursuant to section 56, the applicant was entitled to pay the outstanding obligations and have the registration discharged.

The court ordered the respondent to provide the buy-out statement and, upon payment, release the customers and discharge the PPSA registration.

The mother brought a motion for contempt against the father, alleging he failed to notify her of medical appointments, failed to share a tax refund, and breached the access schedule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

The father properly accounted for the tax refund by deducting amounts the mother owed, and the access schedule allowed flexibility for the father's work schedule as an airline pilot.

Costs of $1,400 were awarded to the father.

During a sexual assault trial, defence counsel brought a motion for the trial judge to recuse himself based on comments the judge made criticizing counsel's professional conduct.

The judge had reprimanded counsel for introducing evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity without a prior ruling under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the comments, while critical of counsel, did not demonstrate a predisposition against the accused or create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to increase spousal support and continue child support for the parties' 23-year-old daughter.

The respondent father had taken early retirement, receiving a large pension payout, and subsequently returned to work as a consultant.

The court found that the daughter was no longer a 'child of the marriage' as her online continuing education courses did not constitute a reasonable educational plan, terminating child support.

The court found the father's early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the rule against double-dipping, the court determined the unequalized portion of the father's pension to be considered for support.

The court declined to strictly apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the mother's unreasonable post-separation financial decisions, and ordered the father to pay increased spousal support of $5,000 per month.