Robbie D. Gordon

The applicant brought a certiorari application seeking to quash committal to trial on charges of assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm, and extortion following a preliminary inquiry.

The applicant argued that the evidence did not establish a causal connection between the alleged assault and the complainant’s serious injuries and that the extortion charge lacked evidence of intent to obtain property.

Applying the committal test articulated in R. v. Arcuri, the court held that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer that the injuries were caused by the alleged assault based on common sense inferences from the evidence.

The court also found sufficient evidence that violence was used to obtain control of the disputed property during the altercation.

The application to quash the indictment was dismissed.

Family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and sale of matrimonial real estate following separation.

The court granted the mother sole custody of the child and established a graduated access schedule for the father beginning with supervised access and transitioning to unsupervised weekend access.

Retroactive child support and spousal support were denied because the father's share of rental profits retained by the mother since separation was sufficient to offset those obligations, though ongoing guideline child support was ordered based on imputed income.

The parties were ordered to sell jointly owned real properties with proceeds applied to debts and then divided equally, subject to an equalization payment from the father.

The father was also ordered to sign passport documentation for the child subject to notice restrictions on relocation.

Following a marriage of 16 years, the applicant sought spousal support, contribution to s. 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The court held that the equalization claim was stayed due to the respondent’s completed consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non‑compensatory bases given the applicant’s years out of the workforce raising children and the income disparity between the parties.

Ongoing spousal support of $500 per month was ordered for a time‑limited period until April 30, 2018, together with retroactive spousal support of $8,825 payable monthly.

The court declined to order additional contributions for extracurricular expenses but ordered a modest payment related to post‑secondary education expenses and set out detailed ongoing support arrangements.

The defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for possession and the amount due under a mortgage.

The plaintiff mortgagor argued it was no longer in default, the notice of sale omitted some property, and the defendant failed to provide notice under s. 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff was in default, the court should not interfere with the lawful realization of security, and the plaintiff was not an 'insolvent person' requiring s. 244 notice.

A costs decision following a family law trial involving child support, extraordinary expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on several settlement offers under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that none of the offers were bettered at trial and therefore did not trigger Rule 18 consequences.

Although trial success was divided between the parties, the court found the applicant had behaved unreasonably during the proceedings by failing to properly disclose income, failing to support the children adequately after separation, and disregarding a court order.

As a result, the applicant was disentitled from claiming costs despite partial success, and the respondent was awarded costs.

Cottage property owners sought a further order modifying an interim consent order governing access over a roadway located on neighbouring lands subject to disputed easements.

The moving parties requested relief permitting propane deliveries, septic pumping, contractor access for repairs, roadway maintenance, and vegetation trimming.

The court held that interim use of the respondents’ property should remain limited to basic use necessary to maintain and enjoy the moving parties’ properties while minimizing risk of damage or inconvenience to the respondents.

Limited relief was granted permitting propane delivery, septic pumping, contractor access for necessary repairs, and controlled trimming of roadside branches, subject to strict conditions.

Requests to undertake broader roadway repairs or renovations were denied pending resolution of the underlying litigation.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring a justice of the peace to receive a private information alleging that a police officer committed indictable offences.

The justice of the peace had refused to receive the information after determining there were no reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed.

The Superior Court held that receiving an information is a ministerial act where the information is facially compliant with s. 504 of the Criminal Code.

Because the complaint alleged indictable offences, asserted reasonable and probable grounds, and indicated territorial jurisdiction, the justice of the peace was obliged to receive and swear the information.

The matter was ordered remitted so the information could proceed to the pre‑enquête stage to determine whether process should issue.

Following competing family law motions addressing custody, access, assessment, and child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered success, proportionality, the parties’ conduct, and the limited financial means of the litigants.

The respondent had brought an earlier motion that was found not urgent and obtained no relief, entitling the applicant to costs of that motion.

For the later motions, the court found divided success between the parties and ordered each to bear their own costs.

The defendant First Nation brought a motion to set aside a consent judgment of $1.6 million obtained by the plaintiff for mould remediation work.

The defendant alleged the judgment was obtained by fraud, claiming the work was not done and the former Chief lacked authority to enter into the contract or consent to judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to prove fraud on a balance of probabilities and that the former Chief had ostensible authority to bind the defendant.

The parties separated after 12.5 years of marriage and resolved custody and access of their three children.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's income for child support purposes, imputing additional income due to undisclosed earnings from various side businesses.

The court ordered retroactive child support and found that the children's extensive athletic and musical activities qualified as Section 7 extraordinary expenses, requiring proportionate contribution from the applicant.

The court also valued the matrimonial home, accounting for necessary roof repairs, and calculated the equalization of net family properties, applying various set-offs against the equalization payment owed by the respondent.

An estate trustee sought directions regarding interpretation of a will that created conditional gifts of $150,000 to each of the testator’s three sons, contingent upon purchasing real property secured by a mortgage to the estate.

The will also established a residue trust for future grandchildren to be divided ten years after death.

The court considered principles of will interpretation and extrinsic evidence regarding the testator’s intentions as a real estate investor.

The court held that each son must own real property for a cumulative period of ten years for the gift to vest, beginning when the property is acquired, and that the estate must ensure adequate security through mortgage equity before advancing funds.

The court further ruled on related issues concerning repayment on sale, mortgage priority, trust duration, and residual beneficiaries.

A homeowner sued a contractor for damages after basement water problems persisted following the installation of new weeping tile.

The court considered conflicting expert evidence regarding whether the tile had been installed in compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

The court found that the contractor failed to install the weeping tile below the basement floor in the area of a later addition, resulting in improper drainage and continued water infiltration.

Although other potential causes of leakage existed, the contractor remained responsible for the cost of correcting the defective installation.

The plaintiff was awarded partial damages for the cost of reinstalling weeping tile around the affected portion of the house.

A dispute arose between a bankruptcy trustee and a vehicle lessor over entitlement to a leased automobile following the debtor’s assignment in bankruptcy.

The lessor had not registered a security interest under the Personal Property Security Act.

The court found the vehicle lease, which exceeded one year and contemplated eventual transfer of ownership, constituted a security agreement within the meaning of the PPSA.

Because the security interest was unperfected at the date of bankruptcy, it was ineffective against the trustee and the vehicle vested in the bankruptcy estate.

The lessor was also ordered to repay lease payments received after notice of the trustee’s interest.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, arguing the trial judge erred in finding no breach of the right to counsel and in concluding that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable.

The court held that the trial judge did not commit a palpable and overriding error in determining there was no breach of the appellant’s right to counsel during the roadside delay awaiting an Approved Screening Device.

However, the court found the trial judge’s reasons regarding whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

This deficiency constituted an error of law.

A new trial was ordered.

The plaintiff built a camp on an island partially owned by his former mother-in-law, the defendant.

After the plaintiff and the defendant's daughter separated, the plaintiff continued to use and maintain the camp exclusively for 20 years.

When the defendant attempted to terminate his use of the camp, the plaintiff brought an action claiming ownership or equitable relief.

The court found that while the camp was a fixture belonging to the realty, the plaintiff established claims for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court granted the plaintiff a constructive trust and a personal licence to occupy the camp for his lifetime, provided he maintains it and pays associated costs.

The responding parent was alleged to be in contempt of a final custody and access order providing for shared parenting on an alternating weekly basis.

The moving parent claimed the child was withheld during scheduled parenting time over the Christmas holiday.

The court held that civil contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a clear order was deliberately and wilfully disobeyed.

While a child’s refusal may complicate compliance, a parent must take reasonable steps to ensure the child follows the order.

The court found contempt established for a single incident where the responding parent failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate the child’s attendance with the other parent, but not for subsequent periods because the moving parent made no further attempts to exercise access.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of ownership by adverse possession over a cottage property and a prescriptive easement over a right of way.

The property was originally owned by the defendant's father, who mistakenly believed he had gifted it to the defendant.

The court found that the defendant established adverse possession over most of the cottage property due to mutual mistake, which negated the requirement for inconsistent use.

However, the claim for adverse possession over an adjacent strip of land was dismissed for lack of actual possession.

The court also granted the defendant a prescriptive easement over the right of way based on over 40 years of uninterrupted use.

The plaintiff brought an action against her accident benefits insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and sought to avoid attending an oral examination for discovery due to alleged psychological harm.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not provide persuasive and compelling medical evidence that attendance for discovery, with appropriate accommodations, would cause significant psychological damage.

The court ordered that the plaintiff attend for examination for discovery and held that the defendant insurer was entitled to examine first under the Rules of Civil Procedure because it served the first affidavit of documents and notice of examination.

The court also ruled that an application for mediation under the Insurance Act does not automatically give rise to litigation privilege and does not, by itself, establish that litigation was reasonably contemplated.

A custody and support trial concerning a child born of a short-term common‑law relationship.

The court assessed the best interests of the child under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, examining stability of the home environment, parental ability to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent, involvement in schooling, and responsiveness to service providers.

The court found the father’s household offered greater stability and that the mother’s hostility toward the father risked impairing the child’s relationship with him.

Custody was therefore awarded to the father with structured access to the mother.

The court denied spousal support but awarded $6,000 to the mother for unjust enrichment arising from labour improving the father’s property.

The Crown brought pre‑trial applications seeking rulings on the admissibility of a transcript from prior family law proceedings between the accused and the complainant, and a 911 recording made immediately after the alleged stabbing.

The court held that the family court transcript was admissible to prove what was said at the hearing and to support a potential motive, though not for the truth of its contents, and that certain portions should be redacted.

The court also admitted the 911 recording under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, finding it was a spontaneous statement made contemporaneously with the alleged offence and highly probative of the circumstances of the attack.

The court concluded that the probative value of the recording outweighed any prejudicial effect and that the audio recording, rather than the transcript containing descriptive annotations, should be presented to the jury.