Gordon D. Lemon

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.

The applicant, Wendy Crane, sought an order declaring her mother, Lesly Metzger, incapable of managing her property and person, and appointing Ms. Crane as sole permanent guardian.

Ms. Crane also sought the removal of Nigel Cason, Mrs. Metzger's uncle, as attorney for personal care and property management.

The court found that Ms. Crane failed to provide strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect by Mr. Cason, or that his removal was in Mrs. Metzger's best interests.

The court noted Ms. Crane's untrustworthy actions, including taking her incapable mother to Seattle under false pretenses and facilitating unauthorized bank withdrawals.

The application was dismissed, and Mr. Cason's powers of attorney remained in effect.

The applicant, Andrew Saiedy, brought a motion seeking an order to amend the record of his ongoing wrongful dismissal proceeding to replace his full name with his initials (A.S.) in public domain legal search resources, citing concerns about future employment prospects.

He also sought costs against the City of Markham.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Saiedy provided no evidence that such an order was necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important interest, nor that it would be proportional to the public interest in open court proceedings.

The court also noted that any order would only affect the proceedings before it and could not retroactively alter records already in the public domain.

The court further ordered Saiedy to pay $5,000 in costs to the City of Markham, finding his position to be without legal merit despite not being frivolous or vexatious.

The respondent, Ms. Hung, brought a motion seeking an order to find the applicant, Mr. Willis, in contempt of a prior court order, for the delivery of his tax returns and Notices of Assessment, for his attendance at questioning, and for payment of funds into court.

The contempt aspect of the motion was withdrawn due to improper service.

The parties agreed on the questioning schedule.

The court ordered Mr. Willis to file his 2015, 2016, and 2017 tax returns with the CRA and provide them, along with Notices of Assessment, to Ms. Hung, rejecting his arguments that a subsequent order or non-filing with the CRA relieved him of this duty.

The request for payment into court was dismissed as res judicata, having been previously addressed by another order.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

The applicant sought an interim order for primary residence of the children and specific access for the respondent.

The respondent opposed, alleging parental alienation.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering primary residence with the father, structured weekend and weekday access for the mother, and mandating the use of Our Family Wizard for communication.

The decision was based on the children's best interests, considering the younger child's reluctance to spend more time with the mother, issues with school attendance, and the need to ensure continued contact while minimizing direct parental conflict.

A settlement conference was scheduled to move the matter towards trial.

The applicant, James Kritz, sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an order to rescind a City of Guelph building inspector's order.

The City of Guelph argued for no costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found Kritz entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the City's submission that success on two out of three arguments negated costs, affirming that costs follow the event of overall success.

The court fixed costs at $37,482.01, noting the City's own partial indemnity bill of costs was $29,367.33 and that Kritz's expert fees were reasonable and appropriate.

The request for substantial indemnity was denied as there was no finding of improper conduct by the City, the issue having been withdrawn by the applicant.

The defendants sought an order for a further defence medical assessment of the plaintiff, Saokeng Mork, by an orthopaedic surgeon and chronic pain specialist, Dr. Hugh Cameron.

The court applied the factors from Bonello v. Taylor, finding insufficient evidence to warrant the examination.

Specifically, the plaintiff was not relying on an orthopaedic expert, and Dr. Cameron's expertise in chronic pain was not sufficiently demonstrated by his resume for the purpose of ordering the examination.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, Mr. Noor, brought a motion to vary an interim order dated January 28, 2016, seeking to reduce his child and spousal support obligations and to obtain an order allowing him to travel internationally with his son annually.

The court found insufficient evidence to justify a change in interim support, noting that the applicant had not pursued available steps to mitigate income reduction and that the respondent, a stay-at-home mother, should not have income imputed at this stage.

The request for international travel was also denied, with the court suggesting that resources should be focused on resolving outstanding issues.

The motion was dismissed, and the file was adjourned to a settlement conference.

This interim motion in a family law proceeding addressed issues of custody, access, child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and employment benefits.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, confirming the existing access schedule.

The respondent's request for Office of the Children’s Lawyer intervention was dismissed.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support and retroactive child support based on his 2015 income, and to continue contributing to Montessori school fees (section 7 expenses).

Interim spousal support was dismissed due to insufficient financial information from the applicant and the respondent's limited capacity after other support payments.

The respondent was ordered to maintain the applicant and child on his employment benefits.

The trial addressed three issues: whether an interim sole custody order for the applicant should be made final, whether the respondent's access should be extended to include Thursday nights, and whether child support obligations should be varied if access was increased.

The court found the respondent's evidence unreliable due to past dishonesty regarding alcohol addiction and anger management issues, which significantly impacted his ability to communicate and cooperate.

The court determined that the parties could not effectively communicate without a third party and that joint custody was not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for increased access was denied, partly because it was tied to a desire to reduce child support without a clear plan for the children's well-being.

Consequently, the interim sole custody order for the applicant was made final, and the respondent was ordered to pay child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The defendant manufacturer brought a motion for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff in a commercial dispute involving alleged breach of a furniture supply arrangement, copyright infringement, and passing off.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

Applying Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient exigible assets and that its financial disclosure lacked the required robust particularity.

The court rejected arguments that the merits of the claim or the overlap with the counterclaim made security unjust.

Security for costs was ordered on a step‑by‑step basis, requiring payment into court pending further proceedings.

Following a family law motion resolving several financial issues, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent argued she should receive costs while the applicant sought significant costs on various indemnity bases.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing costs awards, the court found the applicant had been substantially successful on the motion.

The court rejected attempts by the respondent to characterize the result as mixed and emphasized that costs must reflect what the unsuccessful party would reasonably expect to pay.

Costs were fixed at $21,000 payable by the respondent.

The applicant sought interim custody or primary residence of the parties’ child, defined access for the respondent, child support, and contribution to daycare expenses.

The respondent sought expanded access and a change of the child’s school.

The court held that the child’s primary residence should remain with the applicant given the status quo and the child’s long-standing residence and daycare arrangements.

The court rejected the respondent’s claim that his parenting time reached the 40 percent threshold under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support based on the respondent’s income for relevant periods.

The request to change the child’s school was dismissed on an interim basis pending further evidence.

Following reasons granting judgment to the applicant on a dispute arising from a share purchase and pledge arrangement, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, while the responding parties argued that success was divided or that costs should be reduced.

The court held the applicant was clearly the successful party and entitled to costs but found no litigation conduct justifying full or substantial indemnity.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering proportionality, complexity, and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were set at a lump sum payable jointly and severally by two respondents.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support for two children based on an imputed income of $50,000 to the respondent and requested the order be retroactive to the date of separation.

The respondent argued that support should be calculated based on his limited employment insurance income and recent temporary employment.

The court held that it should be cautious about imputing income on an interim motion without clear evidentiary support and found insufficient evidence to justify imputing $50,000.

However, the court determined it was reasonable to expect the respondent could earn at least $20,000 annually and imputed that amount for interim purposes.

Interim child support was set at $306 per month effective January 1, 2015, with credit for payments already made.

The insurer brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a capacity assessment under the Substitute Decisions Act and requesting that income replacement benefits be paid into court pending the assessment.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought direct payment of benefits.

The court considered the statutory presumption of capacity and the factors governing intrusive capacity assessments under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Although medical reports documented chronic pain, depression, and psychological symptoms, the evidence did not establish a sufficient basis to believe the plaintiff lacked capacity.

The motion was dismissed and the insurer was ordered to resume payment of outstanding income replacement benefits.

The moving party sought to vary a final child support order by reducing his support obligation based on an alleged decline in income.

The original order was made on consent using an acknowledged income significantly higher than that reported on the moving party’s tax return, reflecting substantial cash income from tips.

The court held that on a motion to change the original order is presumed correct and the moving party bears the burden of proving a material change in circumstances.

The evidence, including the moving party’s income tax returns, showed his reported income had increased rather than decreased.

The court found no material change and dismissed the application to reduce child support.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside prior family court orders granting a divorce, ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, granting exclusive possession to the applicant wife, and authorizing her to sign documents for the sale.

He alleged he had not been served with the original application or a subsequent motion that led to his eviction from the home.

The court found he had been properly served with the application and was deemed served under the Family Law Rules, and that his failure to file an answer meant he was not entitled to further notice of steps in the case.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court concluded the moving party had no plausible excuse for the default and no arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed and the applicant wife was granted additional compensation from the moving party’s share of the sale proceeds for charges placed against the property.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses following separation.

The respondent argued that the parenting arrangement met the 40 percent threshold for shared custody under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and that support should be set-off.

The court held there was no genuine issue regarding retroactive support prior to June 5, 2015 and fixed arrears based on the respondent’s income, rejecting attempts to offset household expenses or costs against support obligations.

However, the court found that whether the 40 percent threshold would apply going forward and whether claimed s. 7 expenses were reasonable required a trial.

The balance of the summary judgment motions was dismissed.

Interim family law motions addressing numerous issues including sale of the matrimonial home, child support, interim equalization, spousal support, disclosure, and various ancillary relief.

The court declined to order an immediate sale of the matrimonial home and left several financial disputes, including occupation rent, vehicle payments, income imputation, and entitlement to spousal support, for determination at trial.

The court ordered the applicant to pay guideline child support retroactive to July 2014 and granted the respondent an interim equalization payment to assist with legal expenses.

Several requests brought by the applicant, including spousal support, third‑party orders, restraining relief, and interim expenses, were dismissed for lack of evidentiary support.

Disclosure disputes and production issues were left to ongoing procedural timelines and trial management.