Robbie D. Gordon

The applicant initially sought an order of mandamus compelling the respondent Minister to make public proposed accessibility standards reports.

After the reports were released, the applicant amended the application to seek a declaration that the respondent breached his statutory duty under s. 10(1) of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 by failing to release them upon receipt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as moot, noting the live controversy had disappeared.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding that the required analysis of what constitutes reasonable steps prior to release is highly contextual and would not provide meaningful guidance for future cases.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to adduce evidence that a third party committed the offence.

The court assessed whether there was a sufficient connection between the third party and the crime to establish an air of reality for the defence.

Assuming the proposed evidence to be true, the court found that the third party's opportunity, admissions of guilt, fingerprint evidence, and other circumstantial factors met the air of reality threshold.

The application was granted, permitting the accused to lead the third-party suspect evidence at trial, with admissibility to be determined when tendered.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued the settlement lacked certainty and that the court should exercise its discretion not to enforce it, particularly because one plaintiff was a party under disability.

The court found that an objective reading of the communications between counsel established a binding agreement to settle.

The court also found the settlement was in the best interests of the party under disability and declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the agreement, noting the plaintiffs' remedy for any alleged bad advice lay against their former counsel.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that it validly renewed its commercial lease or, alternatively, relief from forfeiture.

The tenant failed to provide written notice of renewal within the time required by the lease.

The court found that while the respondent landlord initially waived strict compliance during negotiations, it validly revoked that waiver by providing reasonable notice and a deadline for compliance.

The tenant failed to make diligent efforts to comply with the new deadline.

Consequently, the court held the tenant did not validly renew the lease and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff commercial tenant sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant landlord from terminating its lease.

The plaintiff had failed to provide written notice of renewal on time and had sublet the premises without consent.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried, as the plaintiff had not made diligent efforts to comply with the lease terms, precluding relief from forfeiture.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged losses would be suffered by the subtenant, not the plaintiff.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The minor plaintiff was seriously injured after hanging onto the outside of a moving escalator handrail at the defendants' shopping mall and falling from a height.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants owed no duty of care to protect the plaintiff from such an obvious and self-evidently dangerous activity.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff willingly assumed the risk under s. 4(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act, and that the defendants' security measures were reasonable.

This case involves a motion for default judgment brought by the plaintiffs against the Crown (Ontario Ministry of Labour) following the death of Raymond Campeau in a mining accident.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence by Ministry of Labour inspectors for failing to ensure compliance with safety orders.

Ontario was noted in default after repeatedly failing to respond to the statement of claim and court orders.

The court found Ontario liable, ruling that the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, did not bar the action as it concerned the negligent operational implementation of a regulatory decision, not the decision itself.

Damages were assessed for loss of services, income, guidance, care, companionship, and pain and suffering.

The appellant sought leave under section 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action and file pleadings on behalf of a corporation in an ongoing shareholder dispute.

The application judge refused leave, finding that the proposed action would not benefit the corporation and that the appellant was not acting in good faith due to a conflict of interest.

On appeal, the Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendant in a defamation action sought leave to amend her statement of defence to add particulars of justification regarding the plaintiffs' alleged negligence in representing claimants.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing delay, prejudice, and abuse of process.

The court denied the substantive amendments, finding that the defendant had known the facts prior to an earlier discovery motion but withheld them to improperly gain broad documentary discovery.

The court held that allowing the amendments now would condone a questionable litigation tactic and constitute an abuse of process.

S.S. was convicted of multiple offences, including sexual assault, and the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation.

S.S. applied to re-open the trial and for habeas corpus based on a recanting affidavit from the complainant.

The court applied the rigorous test for re-opening a defence case after conviction, focusing on the cogency of the new evidence.

The complainant testified that she signed the affidavit under pressure and that its contents were largely untrue, reaffirming her trial evidence.

The court found the recantation lacked sufficient cogency to warrant re-opening the trial, as the complainant's credibility was already thoroughly assessed at trial and there was corroborating evidence.

The applications were dismissed.

The parties separated in 2015 after a 16-year marriage.

The applicant sought retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, and an equalization payment.

The respondent argued that his payment of the matrimonial home's carrying costs caused undue hardship and that his 2017 medical leave should reduce his support obligations.

The court ordered retroactive child support from August 2015, but relieved the respondent of his obligation for five months in 2016 due to undue hardship.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share of child care and hockey expenses, finalized the equalization payment, and established a shared parenting schedule for the youngest child.

The applicant, charged with historical sexual offences against a former foster child, sought to adduce the complainant's Children's Aid Society records at trial to challenge her credibility.

The records had been previously produced to the applicant under a pre-trial order.

The court held that the admissibility framework under section 278.92 of the Criminal Code applies to all records in the possession or control of the accused, regardless of how they were obtained.

The court granted the application in part, allowing the applicant to cross-examine the complainant on a specific caseworker note and the general absence of other complaints in the records, but refused to admit the records in their entirety to protect the complainant's privacy.

This defamation action involved a motion to set the terms of a discovery plan.

The defendant, Fay Brunning, sought broad documentary disclosure from the plaintiffs, including files related to numerous clients in "Cochrane Actions" and "IAP claims" based on a defence of justification.

The plaintiffs were willing to disclose documents related to a specific client (Claimant H) but argued that Brunning's justification defence was not sufficiently particularized to warrant broader disclosure.

The court found Brunning's request for disclosure overly broad and not supported by the pleadings, limiting disclosure to Claimant H's case and specific communications.

The court also set terms for oral discovery and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., sought summary judgment for specific performance of options to purchase real property.

The defendant, KKP Investments Inc., brought a cross-motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process and for payment of rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings with a related "Main Action" and because it was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was also dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff's new action was a matter of form over substance given prior settlement attempts.

The defendant's request for interim rent was withdrawn.

Both actions were ordered to be tried together.

The respondent Registrar successfully resisted an application for judicial review regarding the cannabis retail lottery and sought costs.

The applicants argued that costs should not be awarded to a decision-maker that successfully resists judicial review, relying on an alleged overriding principle.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting that in Ontario, costs are awarded to administrative tribunals acting in an adversarial role to defend their decisions.

The court awarded the Registrar costs of the stay motion and the application, fixing the quantum at $40,000.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and other domestic violence offences, applied for a bail review after being denied bail.

He argued that trial delay, medical issues, jail programming, and the prospect of a section 11(b) Charter stay constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court also ruled on an evidentiary issue, holding that the Crown generally cannot cross-examine a proposed surety on admissions made by the accused about the offences.

Ultimately, the court found no material change in circumstances and held that continued detention was necessary on tertiary grounds due to the gravity of the offences and the strength of the Crown's case.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging the defendants conspired to acquire a property by fraud.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The plaintiff argued its interest in the property, registered under the Personal Property Security Act, had priority over a subsequent mortgage registered under the Land Titles Act, and that the mortgage was void under the Planning Act for failing to include abutting lands.

The court found that PPSA registration does not provide notice to a subsequent mortgagee of real property, and the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the abutting lands.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the moving defendants.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation against his ex-wife and two others regarding Facebook posts and oral statements made following their marital separation.

The statements included false allegations of incest, theft, and breach of court orders.

The court found the statements were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, and were published to third parties.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in general damages against his ex-wife for libel, and $500 each against the other two defendants for slander.

The plaintiff, a third-generation owner of a funeral home, sold his shares to the defendant and entered into a 10-year Transitional Consulting Services Agreement (TCSA).

Unhappy differences arose, leading the plaintiff to go on medical leave and claim constructive dismissal.

The court found the defendant's course of conduct, including improper termination of vehicle use, tracking hours, non-payment of commissions, removal of a photograph, and changing locks, amounted to constructive dismissal.

The plaintiff's claims for intentional infliction of mental suffering and discrimination under the Human Rights Code were dismissed.

Damages were awarded for lost salary, vehicle expenses, benefits, golf membership, and commissions.

The applicants sought to control access to a private road crossing their property, which the respondents used for vehicular access to their own property.

The previous license agreement between the parties had expired.

The court found that the respondents had no legal right to use the road beyond the limited statutory rights under the Road Access Act.

Balancing the parties' competing interests, the court granted a conditional closing order, allowing the applicants to install a locked gate.

Conditions included providing keys to all property owners relying on the road for access, installing a "knox box" for emergency services, prohibiting key reproduction without consent, and requiring equal sharing of costs for installation, maintenance, and road upkeep among all benefiting property owners.

The applicants' request to restrict the respondents' property use based on zoning bylaws was denied.