William M. LeMay

In a contentious estates proceeding, the court determined costs following an earlier dismissal of the moving party's request for payout of sale proceeds held in trust.

Both sides sought partial indemnity costs and each claimed success, but the court found divided success and held that neither side was completely successful.

Applying Rule 57.01 principles, the court found the amounts sought were excessive in light of proportionality and mixed results.

The court also found litigation conduct by both sides increased costs, while assigning primary responsibility for failing to add the estate party to the estate trustee.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable by one responding party to the moving party.

Dispute over the calculation of a CPI-based Indexing Factor for annuity payments under a testamentary trust.

The testatrix's will established a testamentary trust providing the respondent beneficiary with an annuity, with the Indexing Factor to be determined by the trustees using the Consumer Price Index.

The respondent beneficiary challenged the trustee's CPI calculation methodology, arguing the wrong CPI chart, wrong date, and wrong calculation approach were used.

The court held that the will conferred discretion on the trustees to determine the Indexing Factor, and that determination was conclusive and binding on all beneficiaries absent bad faith.

In the alternative, the court found the trustee's calculations were correct, consistent with Statistics Canada methodology and the will's terms.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, which arose after a house fire destroyed a mortgaged property on which the plaintiffs held a registered mortgage.

The insurance policy named a different entity (Community Trust Company) as the mortgagee under the standard mortgage clause, not the plaintiffs.

The court declined to strike the contract claim, finding no binding Ontario authority that the standard mortgage clause is limited strictly to the named mortgagee, and noting language ambiguity identified in out-of-province jurisprudence.

The court also found the rectification claim was properly pleaded, as the statement of claim identified the parties' common and continuing intention to protect the actual registered mortgagee.

The unjust enrichment claim was likewise permitted to continue, with case management directed to coordinate with a companion action.

All three branches of the Rule 21 motion were dismissed.

The applicant, the sole registered owner of a property in Kincardine, Ontario, sought an interlocutory injunction to remove the respondent from the property and obtain exclusive possession to facilitate its sale.

The respondent, who currently occupies the property, claimed he owns 51% of the property pursuant to an alleged oral agreement to operate a commercial marijuana cultivation operation.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found the applicant established a strong prima facie case based on the tort of ejectment, irreparable harm from loss of control of the property and ongoing financial burden, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court granted the injunction with conditions including a 30-day grace period for the respondent to vacate and a requirement that net proceeds of sale be paid into court.

The court addressed a motion to interpret an order made on September 9, 2025, regarding the preservation of funds in trust accounts.

The plaintiff sought clarification on whether the order required the defendants to deposit additional funds into trust or merely maintain funds already held in trust.

The court also addressed whether the order applied to all defendants or only the Mayfield defendants.

The court held that the order requires maintenance of funds already in trust, not the deposit of new funds, and that the order applies only to the Mayfield defendants, not the Gandhi defendants.

The Crown sought to admit a statement given by the accused to police following his arrest for assault, uttering threats, and related offences.

The defence opposed admission, arguing the statement was involuntary and that various Charter breaches occurred, including violations of sections 10(a), 10(b), and 7.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statement.

The court found that the statement was voluntary and that while two technical Charter violations occurred (failure to inform the accused of all charges at the initial arrest and providing an incorrect charge description at the second arrest), these breaches were remedied before the statement was taken through a "fresh start." The court admitted the statement.

The accused was charged with nine counts arising from two discrete incidents in May and June 2019 involving his former partner.

The Crown conceded two counts.

The court found the accused guilty of uttering threats (two counts), sexual assault, arson, and break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The court acquitted on assault, break and enter with intent (May incident), uttering threats (June incident), and escape from lawful custody.

The defence of automatism based on substance abuse was rejected, as the court found the accused retained sufficient capacity to form the necessary intent for the offences.

The applicant purchased a property in 2018 with title held 99% in his name and 1% in the names of the respondents (the parents of his fiancée).

The applicant paid the entire down payment of $430,000 and deposit of $20,000.

The respondents co-signed the mortgage and paid the monthly mortgage payments, while the applicant paid property taxes, utilities, and insurance.

After the relationship between the applicant and the respondent's daughter ended in 2020, the property was sold in 2022.

The respondents claimed either an agreement existed for a 50/50 split of proceeds or that unjust enrichment applied.

The court found no agreement existed and that unjust enrichment did not apply, ordering the proceeds to be distributed according to title (99% to the applicant, 1% to the respondents).

This decision resolves the final outstanding issue of costs in a long-running civil action involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada, among other parties.

The court reviews the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the principles governing costs, ultimately awarding $25,000 in costs to RBC for steps taken after December 31, 2024.

The court declines to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the conduct of the applicant was problematic, it did not rise to the level required for such an award after the relevant date.

This decision resolves the financial issues arising from the separation of Jamilla Jaha and Mabruck Mengele, including the imputation of income, calculation of child and spousal support, and equalization of property.

The court found that the applicant, Ms. Jaha, was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her accordingly.

The court dismissed her motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and declined to revisit settled parenting and equalization issues.

The court also set out detailed calculations for support arrears and provided for a review of spousal support in three years, in anticipation of the respondent’s retirement.

The court fixes costs in a dispute over the administration and interpretation of the John Szewczyk Testamentary Trust, specifically regarding the calculation of indexed payments to a beneficiary.

The court reviews the parties' positions, the applicable legal principles for costs in estate litigation, and the proportionality of the legal fees claimed.

Ultimately, the court orders that all parties' reasonable costs be paid from the trust, but reduces the amounts claimed by the applicant and one respondent due to concerns about excessiveness and proportionality.

The court considered the proper interpretation of annuity and indexing provisions in the John Szewczyk Testamentary Trust, specifically whether the annuity should be indexed annually or only once at inception, and whether overpayments should be repaid.

The court held that the will’s language and surrounding circumstances supported a one-time indexing at the date of death, with subsequent increases limited to $5,000 every five years.

Overpayments made prior to January 1, 2024, are not recoverable due to a prior settlement, but overpayments after that date are to be recouped by postponing the next scheduled increase.

The court fixes costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time and counseling for the parties' child, D.C. The Applicant (father) was successful in most of his requested relief, and the Respondent (mother) was found to have acted in bad faith by withholding information, flouting court orders, and seeking to reduce the Applicant's parenting time.

The court orders the Respondent to pay $30,000 in costs to the Applicant, to be paid within twelve months, and rejects arguments for reduction based on the Respondent's financial or personal circumstances.

The court fixes costs following an undefended trial in a family law matter where the respondent repeatedly ignored court orders and failed to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs due to the respondent's bad faith conduct.

The court found that the respondent's actions—deliberately ignoring orders and withholding parenting time to leverage financial issues—constituted bad faith.

Costs were fixed at $45,000, to be paid from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

The court granted a motion to strike a third-party claim brought by Roy D’Mello against the plaintiff’s lawyers, Neil Colville-Reeves and Reeves Richarz LLP, in a complex mortgage and property litigation.

The third-party claim sought contribution and indemnity, as well as damages for alleged champerty and maintenance.

The court found that claims against a plaintiff’s lawyer, acting as agent, cannot be sustained where the alleged conduct is attributable to the plaintiff.

The court also held that the facts pleaded did not support a claim for champerty or maintenance.

Leave to amend was denied.

This decision concerns the trial of Tamaal Japp and Moses Tesfay for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Uchenna Achioso.

The court reviews the evidence, including agreed statements of fact, expert testimony, and the credibility of key witnesses.

The main issues are the identity of the accused and the extent of their criminal liability.

The court finds both accused guilty of manslaughter, not murder, concluding that while they participated in an unlawful act leading to death, the evidence does not establish the intent or planning required for murder.

The court sentenced A.K. following a jury conviction for four weapons-related offences under the Criminal Code, including possession of a 3D-printed handgun, silencer, extended magazines, and ammunition.

The court reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors, including the arsenal's seriousness, the offender's youth and difficult background, and the absence of public use of the weapon.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, finding a custodial sentence necessary but imposed a total of 30 months' incarceration, reduced for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused, C.N., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old complainant, V.V. The trial turned on the credibility of the child witnesses and the accused.

The court reviewed the evidence, including video surveillance, police interviews, and testimony, and applied the legal framework for assessing credibility and adverse inferences.

The judge found the accused's evidence not credible, accepted the core of the complainants' evidence, and convicted C.N. on both counts.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting time, decision-making authority, and financial issues following the separation of S.M. (applicant) and N.E. (respondent).

The court reviews the respondent's repeated non-compliance with court orders, her failure to participate in proceedings, and the resulting orders for an undefended trial on financial issues.

The court ultimately denies the respondent's motion to set aside the undefended trial, grants the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child, and sets out detailed orders regarding child support, the matrimonial home, and costs.

The decision addresses a motion by A.C. to enforce a prior order regarding parenting time and family systems therapy for the parties' child, D.C., following a history of domestic violence and high-conflict litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, K.C., has failed to comply with orders regarding both parenting time and therapy, and has unilaterally enrolled D.C. in individual counselling contrary to the court's direction for family systems therapy.

The court orders the resumption of parenting time, directs the parties to engage in family systems therapy, and retains jurisdiction to supervise compliance.