Robbie D. Gordon

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 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 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.

Following dismissal of a child protection appeal, the successful respondent sought a full recovery costs award.

The court considered Family Law Rule 24, which removes the usual presumption that a successful party receives costs in child protection matters.

Applying discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and by analogy to Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court evaluated factors including the result, settlement offers, importance of the issues, conduct of the parties, and policy considerations related to the statutory mandate of children’s aid societies.

Although the respondent had succeeded and had made a written settlement offer, the court found the society acted reasonably in pursuing the appeal given the seriousness of the allegations and prior judicial comments that the appeal raised serious issues.

In light of the policy that child protection authorities should not be discouraged from pursuing their statutory mandate, the court declined to award costs.