Gordon D. Lemon

The applicant moved to change a long-standing spousal support order after paying support for nearly 19 years following an 18-year marriage.

He relied on new family responsibilities, health concerns, reduced working hours, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to argue that support should terminate.

The court held that the record did not permit a finding of a material change in circumstances within the meaning of s. 17 of the Divorce Act, and that speculative future income loss could not ground variation.

In any event, the court found the respondent remained both entitled to and in need of support on compensatory and non-compensatory bases, and dismissed the application.

This was a costs endorsement following a motion in which the plaintiff and receiver obtained approval of the sale of the business in dispute and a stay of the defendants' summary judgment motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized the plaintiff's substantial success, the importance of the issues, the efficiency of counsel's time, and the defendants' conduct in unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court also noted repeated delay by defence counsel and gave no weight to the late costs submissions.

Costs were fixed at $7,341.49 payable by the personal defendants to the plaintiff.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the written submissions and applied the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding the requested hours and rates reasonable, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $8,963.38.

Following dismissal of a motion to vary child support, the court determined the costs consequences.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs, relying in part on offers to settle.

The court held that there was no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, noted that the successful party had been unsuccessful on some imputed income allegations, and fixed costs at $7,500.00.

The costs were enforceable as support through the Family Responsibility Office if unpaid.

This was a costs endorsement following an earlier ruling in an estate matter.

After receiving further costs submissions, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $10,919.75 payable from the estate and the respondents' costs at $6,466.37 also payable from the estate.

A draft order could be forwarded for signature.

The applicant solicitor moved to oppose confirmation of an assessment officer's report reducing a legal account rendered in relation to motor vehicle accident benefits litigation.

The court held that the assessment officer's reasons were inadequate because they did not meaningfully apply the nine Cohen factors and failed to demonstrate an intelligible path of reasoning, amounting to an error in principle.

Rather than remit the matter for a further assessment, the court conducted the assessment itself.

Applying the relevant factors, the court allowed a $100,000 success premium and fixed the fee at $250,000, while otherwise confirming the report and certificate.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to quash a residential search warrant and exclude the resulting evidence in a cocaine trafficking prosecution.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the governing search warrant authorities, including the totality-of-the-circumstances assessment for confidential informant information and the compelling-credible-corroborated framework.

The informant's recent first-hand tip was found sufficiently detailed, credible, and corroborated by police database checks and surveillance.

The court held that the issuing justice could reasonably have authorized the warrant and dismissed the application.

The moving accused sought severance of two firearm counts laid only against a co-accused from the remaining home invasion robbery and unlawful confinement counts.

Applying the interests of justice analysis under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the framework in Last, the court held the later-discovered revolver was sufficiently similar to the weapon seen in the surveillance evidence to make the May firearm evidence relevant and admissible on the October counts.

The court found a factual nexus between the counts, concluded any moral prejudice could be addressed by the trial judge, and held that separate trials would be inefficient where the evidence would be admissible in both.

The severance application was dismissed.

In a family law trial between self-represented former spouses, the court resolved claims for child support, spousal support, equalization, a restraining order, and variations to parenting terms.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings against the applicant, accepted the respondent's evidence where conflicts arose, and found the final separation date was October 15, 2010.

The court held that neither party owed an equalization payment, fixed child support at $1,538 per month, declined to make a present order for section 7 expenses, and ordered spousal support of $1,777 per month through a combination of mortgage, vehicle, and direct payments.

The claim for retroactive arrears and the request for a restraining order were dismissed, and divorce was severed for later uncontested application.

The defendant moved to pay funds into court to discharge a construction lien registered against her property.

She sought to reduce the amount payable into court on the basis that the plaintiff’s lien claim was deficient.

The court held that a reduction under s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act requires clear and unequivocal proof that the lien is excessive or improper.

On the motion record, the court was unable to assess the strength of the parties’ cases and found the required evidentiary threshold had not been met.

The motion was therefore dismissed, leaving the defendant free to seek discharge of the lien by paying the required amount into court under the statute.

The plaintiff brought a motion concerning the scope of cross-examination on affidavits relied upon by the defendants in ongoing civil litigation.

The defendants argued that the materials had already been the subject of extensive cross-examinations during an earlier similar motion and that further cross-examination should not be permitted.

The plaintiff disagreed and sought the opportunity to conduct additional cross-examinations.

The court determined that the issue required determination on the record rather than by conference call.

The parties were directed to file brief facta addressing the issue and to attend for submissions on a scheduled date.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded access to a young child, including overnight and holiday access, following a period of supervised visits under a prior order.

The respondent mother proposed a slower phase‑in schedule and limited holiday access.

The court found evidence of a positive bond between the father and the child and determined that both parties’ proposals were excessive.

The court ordered unsupervised daytime access three times per week as an incremental step, declined immediate overnight access, and set a holiday visit later in December rather than Christmas.

The court also directed that exchanges occur at the respondent’s residence and required the father to provide contact information during visits.

The respondent spouse brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and multiple prior family court orders, arguing he had never been served with the originating application and related documents.

The court reviewed the service rules under Rule 6 of the Family Law Rules and the test for setting aside default judgments articulated in appellate authority.

Although the moving party acted promptly after learning of the enforcement proceedings, the court found no plausible explanation for his failure to respond where service had been effected at his residence and he admitted ignoring his mail.

The court declined to set aside most prior orders, including those granting exclusive possession and authorizing sale of the matrimonial home.

However, the order noting the moving party in default was set aside and leave was granted to file an Answer and participate in the remaining support and equalization proceedings.

The moving party sought to vary a prior consent order requiring payment of child support for three children based on an income of $47,255, arguing his income had substantially decreased in subsequent years and requesting retroactive reduction and rescission of arrears.

The responding party opposed the motion, alleging the moving party continued to earn unreported cash income and had voluntarily quit employment.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish hidden income but concluded the moving party had voluntarily left secure employment for minor reasons and was therefore intentionally underemployed within the meaning of the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying the principles in Drygala v Pauli, the court held there was no basis to vary the original support order.

The motion to vary was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of an application seeking to set aside a by-law passed at a general meeting of a temple organization, the court addressed costs.

The unsuccessful applicants argued that no costs should be awarded because they were public interest litigants and alleged governance concerns within the organization.

The court rejected the characterization of the applicants as public interest litigants, finding the litigation was primarily driven by efforts to regain control of the organization rather than a broader public interest.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined the respondents were entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 payable jointly and severally by the applicants.

The applicant brought a motion to vary existing child and spousal support orders following the respondent’s earlier-than-expected retirement and pension payout.

The court found a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify reconsideration of spousal support but dismissed the claim for continued child support.

The judge identified unresolved issues regarding the proper actuarial treatment of the pension payout and the appropriate calculation of spousal support, including whether the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines should apply.

The court sought further submissions from counsel and potentially the actuaries to determine the correct approach before finalizing the variation.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of a sale of the corporate defendant’s convenience store assets for $140,000 following a marketing process.

One shareholder opposed the sale and sought to cancel it, discharge the receiver, and regain control of the business, arguing the price was below market value and the sales process was flawed.

Applying the principles governing approval of receiver sales, including the factors from Soundair, the court held the receiver had acted reasonably and in the interests of stakeholders.

The competing offer lacked a deposit and contained significant conditions, while the approved offer was firm and supported by the secured creditor and the other shareholder.

The court approved the sale and dismissed the defendants’ motions to stop the transaction and remove the receiver.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown sought to admit opinion evidence from a police officer regarding the pricing and value of cocaine imported through Pearson Airport.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the proposed expert evidence, arguing the witness lacked proper qualifications and that the evidence could improperly influence the jury.

Applying the criteria for expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Sekhon, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification.

The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the accused’s knowledge and that the jury would not otherwise understand the value of the quantity of cocaine involved.

Based on the officer’s extensive investigative experience and exposure to pricing information through investigations and intelligence sources, the court concluded he possessed the requisite specialized knowledge and permitted the opinion evidence.

During a conference call in ongoing litigation between the parties, the court addressed procedural steps relating to a proposed motion for leave and a motion concerning affidavits of documents.

The responding party was permitted to prepare and serve materials seeking leave to bring a motion alongside the requested documentary motion.

The court directed that the materials be delivered to chambers by a specified date and scheduled a follow‑up conference call with counsel to review the materials and provide further direction.

Following dismissal of a family law appeal concerning renewal or termination of spousal support, the successful respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The court applied the presumption under the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs and considered factors including the importance of the issue, the parties’ conduct, settlement efforts, and ability to pay.

Although the unsuccessful appellant acted sincerely and not unreasonably, the respondent had succeeded at both trial and on appeal and reasonably expected a costs award.

The court declined to order full indemnity but found the claimed time and hourly rate reasonable.

Costs were fixed at a fair and reasonable amount of $2,500 payable by the appellant.