William M. LeMay

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.

The applicant law firm sought a charging order against its former client, Christine Roberts, and her accident benefits insurer, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, for legal fees and disbursements incurred in pursuing accident benefits and a potential tort claim.

The court found that the statutory and common law criteria for a charging order or lien were not met, as there was no property recovered or preserved through the solicitor’s efforts.

The court also noted that any assignment of SABS benefits would be void by statute.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The court dismissed MC Mines Inc.'s motion to set aside service and stay a third-party claim brought by Best International Cargo Inc. in Ontario.

The dispute arose from damage to mining equipment during transport from Quebec to Montreal, with MC Mines arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Quebec was the more appropriate forum.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the main contract was formed there, and held that the action should proceed in Ontario to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

This decision addresses two issues in the context of a long-running guardianship and estate dispute: (1) the standing of Indu and Meenu Shewa to participate in the passing of accounts of Sundri Shewa’s property, and (2) the disclosure of medical information regarding Sundri Shewa’s capacity.

The court grants standing to Indu and Meenu, finding their rights and interests may be directly affected by the outcome, and sets out a careful process for the disclosure of sensitive medical records, balancing the need for evidence with privacy concerns.

This decision fixes costs following a motion in long-running litigation involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to RBC and its counsel, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity and the applicant’s claim for costs.

The reasons review the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ultimately awarding $16,500 in costs to be paid by Mr. Mylabathula to RBC.

The court addressed two motions: one to remove counsel for the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula due to a conflict of interest and the likelihood of becoming a witness, and another to strike the counterclaim brought by the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula against RBC and its counsel, Mr. Bowden.

The court ordered the removal of counsel, Mr. Callahan, finding he would inevitably be a witness regarding Mr. Mylabathula's knowledge of costs orders.

The counterclaim by the Estate was struck without leave to amend due to limitations and the inability of an estate to pursue defamation claims.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against Mr. Bowden was struck without leave due to absolute privilege and abuse of process.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against RBC was struck with limited leave to amend, requiring proper pleading of tort elements and a connection for discrimination claims.

This decision addresses ongoing procedural disputes in a long-standing action, primarily concerning discovery obligations, tracing orders, and a motion for leave to strike a statement of defence.

The court ordered the defendants to provide further clarification and information, including affidavits, regarding specific written questions and the tracing of funds from second and third mortgages.

However, the plaintiffs' requests for a tracing order concerning the property's sale proceeds and leave to bring a motion to strike the statement of defence were denied.

The court emphasized the need to move the matter towards mediation and trial, noting that discovery was largely complete.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a trial where the plaintiff's $2.5 million claim was largely dismissed, with only $15,000 awarded under warranty.

The defendant was deemed the successful party for costs.

The court addressed the parties' conduct regarding document organization and hyperlinking during the virtual trial, which significantly lengthened proceedings.

Despite the defendant's success, their costs award was substantially reduced due to joint failures in trial preparation and adherence to practice directions.

The Plaintiffs, Hassan Siddiqui and Sara Al-Ahmar, sought summary judgment against real estate agents and their agencies (Gyanesh Paliwal, Re-Max Realty Specialists Inc., Sanjay Bhayana, and World Class Realty Point) to recover commissions and a premium paid in an assignment of a pre-construction home purchase.

The underlying purchase agreement was not completed by the builder, who returned the deposit but not the premium or commissions.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled with the original assignor, Haarikka Sivanarayan.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding no contractual basis for recovery from the real estate agents as the Plaintiffs did not directly pay the commissions, and the assignor was responsible for them.

Furthermore, the court found no unjust enrichment as there was no direct deprivation of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the agents' enrichment.

The court fixed the costs of the defendants' unsuccessful motion for further particulars.

The plaintiffs, as the successful party, sought full indemnity costs, while the defendants argued for no costs or limited partial indemnity.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the motion's dismissal was due to "evolving Rules reforms" justifying no costs.

It also rejected the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, considering the moderate complexity and the defendants' unnecessary pursuit of the motion, fixing the amount at $4,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for particulars seeking additional details regarding the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent payments, oppression, and piercing the corporate veil.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim provided sufficient material facts to allow the defendants to plead.

The judge emphasized that many requested particulars were either already provided, within the defendants' own knowledge (e.g., corporate records), or could be obtained through the discovery process.

The court also expressed concern that the motion for particulars was being used as a delay tactic, contrary to the goals of civil procedure reform.

This endorsement fixes costs for a prior motion where the Respondent successfully obtained an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she made an equivalent to a Rule 49 offer.

The Applicant sought partial costs or that each party bear their own costs.

The court found the Respondent was the successful party but did not meet or better her offer to settle.

Consequently, costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent $4,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable from his share of the matrimonial home proceeds upon sale.

This decision addresses the determination of costs following an omnibus judgment in a protracted family and civil litigation spanning ten years.

The court fixed costs for three main issues: a dispute with a bailiff, claims between the Applicant and the Respondent/his mother, and an action against Abrahams LLP.

The court applied both Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure principles, emphasizing that successful parties are entitled to costs and that egregious or reprehensible conduct warrants full or substantial indemnity.

The Respondent and his mother were found to have engaged in abusive litigation conduct, leading to significant cost awards against them, while the Applicant was ordered to pay the bailiff's costs for an improper motion.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an eight-day trial in a family law matter consolidated with a civil action.

The Applicant (Hardeep Singh Nijher) sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent (Manpreet Dhaliwal) sought spousal support, equalization, and damages.

The trial decision granted the Respondent a small equalization payment but dismissed all other claims.

The Applicant and Defendants (Applicant's family and a friend) sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the Respondent engaged in bad faith conduct by making false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, and by initiating a multiplicity of proceedings.

While full indemnity costs were deemed appropriate due to bad faith, the court reduced the total quantum awarded to account for the duplication of counsel for the Applicant and Defendants, and the prior resolution of a separate jewelry claim.

This decision addresses outstanding issues following a contentious family law trial, specifically concerning child support calculation, parenting orders, and costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's attempt to re-litigate the child support offset calculation and section 7 expenses, finding no arithmetical errors and no new evidence.

It clarified parenting orders, incorporating some of the parties' agreed-upon terms and making mutual orders for activity attendance.

On costs, the court found the applicant was more successful on the critical issues of material change and sole decision-making authority, despite her offer to settle not meeting the Rule 18 criteria for substantial indemnity.

Considering the divided success and the unreasonable conduct of both parties, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $40,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within twelve months.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 170 to enforce an arbitration award against Bonita Lynne Mittel.

The initial application was granted on February 8, 2024.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,992.76, arguing that condominium litigation warrants higher cost awards under Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Respondent opposed, citing inability to pay and claiming she did not oppose the enforcement application.

The court found that the Respondent did oppose the application and caused delays, and that her financial circumstances did not justify deviating from the statutory policy of shifting costs to the unit owner.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the Applicant, emphasizing the unique nature of costs in condominium disputes.

The respondent brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, an 83-year-old in ill health requiring home dialysis, opposed the sale, arguing it would jeopardize his health and that financial disclosure and equalization issues were unresolved.

The court granted the order for sale, finding no evidence that the applicant's dialysis required him to remain in the specific home and that financial issues were quantifiable and could be managed with hold-backs.

The court ordered the sale to proceed with the applicant remaining in the home until closing, allowing sufficient time for new accommodations.

This decision provides case management directions in a complex, multi-action family law matter.

The court addressed the status of an appeal and enforcement of previous judgments regarding equalization and spousal support, noting that payments had been made.

It granted counsel's motion to get off the record and set a timetable for future motions concerning a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), leave to bring tort actions (abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering), and spousal support arrears.

The court emphasized that previously decided matters, including equalization, were final and not open for re-argument.

Strict communication protocols with the court were reiterated, with a warning against contempt.

This motion arose from the separation of the Applicant father and Respondent mother.

The Respondent had de facto possession of the matrimonial home due to criminal charges against the Applicant.

The Respondent sought sole possession of the home, child support, and parenting time.

The Applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, and parenting time.

The court addressed parenting time (mostly by consent), imputed income to both parties, ordered interim child support from the Applicant, and ordered a $5,000 undifferentiated payment from the Applicant to the Respondent.

The court granted the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the balance of convenience favored him despite domestic violence allegations.

No interim spousal support was ordered due to the short marriage and other factors.

The court also issued directions for ongoing disclosure and a timetable for the litigation.

This is a costs decision following a motion to vary supervised access.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing complete success and bad faith by the Respondent.

The Respondent argued mixed success and unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant was not entirely successful, rejected the bad faith claim, and deemed the motion straightforward.

It also noted both parties' problematic conduct.

The court awarded the Applicant significantly reduced costs, considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the parties' conduct.