William M. LeMay

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after being largely successful at trial on issues of child support, equalization, and decision-making authority.

The Respondent failed to provide proper costs submissions, instead filing "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) materials and challenging the court's jurisdiction.

The court found the Applicant was more successful than her offer to settle and that the Respondent's conduct, including disclosure failures and the advancement of OPCA arguments, warranted substantial recovery costs.

The court awarded $25,000 in costs to the Applicant and addressed concerns about the child's schooling due to the Respondent's OPCA stance.

The applicant challenged the City of Mississauga's Nuisance Weed and Tall Grass Control By-law, arguing it was ultra vires and unconstitutional as an infringement of his right to free expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the by-law did infringe on freedom of expression, it was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The by-law's objectives of public safety, health, and aesthetics were pressing and substantial, and its restrictions were minimally impairing and proportionate.

The court also rejected claims of improper by-law enforcement, lack of qualified inspectors, and insufficient appeal processes.

The Respondent brought a motion to vary an interim order for supervised parenting time, seeking unsupervised access to the child.

The Applicant opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the history, including the Respondent's prior absconding with the child and ongoing conflictual behavior during supervised visits, and the Applicant's hypervigilance.

The court declined to vary the supervised access order, finding it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability and avoid parental conflict.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to assist in determining the child's best interests and managing parental conflict.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash O. Reg. 382/19, which amended transitional rules for planning appeals before the Ontario Land Tribunal, arguing it was ultra vires its enabling statute.

The regulation reimposed a more restrictive procedural regime on third-party appeals of municipal planning decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Attorney General had broad, express statutory authority under s. 43.1 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 to make the transitional regulation.

The court held the regulation was consistent with the enabling statute and did not improperly deprive the applicants of vested substantive rights.

The court also declined to address procedural fairness issues, finding them premature as they should be raised in the applicants' pending motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant builder appealed an arbitrator's final award on damages and costs following a failed real estate transaction.

Previously, a Superior Court judge had set aside the arbitrator's initial liability award, finding the respondent buyers liable for anticipatory breach, and remitted the matter for damages assessment.

On remand, the arbitrator ignored the court's binding findings, created a legal fiction of 'contributory breach of contract,' and limited the builder's damages to the forfeited deposits without hearing evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that arbitrators are bound by the law and appellate court directions.

The award was set aside and remitted to a new arbitrator to properly assess damages based on the difference between the contract and resale prices.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal breached procedural fairness in three ways: relying on the untested evidence of the respondent's expert who did not re-attend for cross-examination, deciding the issue of causation without notice when it was not in dispute, and relying on documents not in evidence that the appellant had no opportunity to address.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The appellant franchisee appealed a motion judge's decision denying an interlocutory injunction to prevent the termination of its franchise agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's two-paragraph reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to address the renewal clause, the factual disputes, or the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Court declined to decide the injunction on the merits, remitting it to a different judge.

The Court also held that the franchisor's undertaking not to terminate the agreement pending the determination of the injunction motion remained binding through the appeal process.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a trial where the plaintiffs were largely successful in their claims regarding property deficiencies against the defendants.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, which did not trigger Rule 49, and applied the principles of Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Factors such as the plaintiffs' greater success, the relative straightforwardness of the proceeding, and the parties' conduct in shortening the trial were weighed.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim for costs reasonable, with a modest reduction due to their partial success, and ordered the defendants to pay $20,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing on the basis of illness and a recent change in counsel.

The respondent initially opposed the adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but directed that the appeal proceed in writing, with a timetable for further submissions.

The court also refused to permit the appellants to file new evidentiary material, noting a lack of diligence in pursuing its admission.

The Applicant sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent brought claims for equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress against the Applicant and his family.

The court dismissed all of the Respondent's claims except for an equalization payment of $6,534.50, finding her evidence largely incredible and unreliable.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request for an unequal division of family property.

The parties separated in 2019 and have five children.

At trial, the issues were equalization, child support, decision-making authority for the youngest child, and post-separation adjustments.

The court awarded the applicant sole decision-making authority for the youngest child, finding the respondent had prioritized his own disputes with the school principal over the child's education, resulting in the child missing 25 days of school.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $67,739 in child support arrears and $2,106 per month in ongoing support, dismissing most of his claims for post-separation adjustments due to lack of disclosure and legal basis.

An equalization payment of $31,817.18 was agreed upon and ordered to be paid from the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration award against the self-represented respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment to obtain counsel, which the court denied due to significant prior delays and the straightforward nature of the enforcement application.

Finding no pending appeal and that the appeal period had expired, the court ordered the enforcement of the arbitration award pursuant to section 50 of the Arbitration Act.

The plaintiffs purchased a home from the defendants and subsequently discovered several deficiencies, including a missing retaining wall for a newly built shop driveway and significant water leakage in the basement.

The plaintiffs sought damages for these deficiencies and punitive damages.

The court found the defendants liable for the costs of constructing the retaining wall, applying the doctrine of rectification or contract interpretation, and for the basement water damage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Other claims for deficiencies and punitive damages were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a Health, Safety and Training Manager, was terminated for cause by her employer after 13 years of service.

The termination stemmed from her handling of her own workplace safety and insurance claim, including delayed reporting, inconsistencies, and a conflict of interest.

The court found the employee's conduct, including dishonesty and suborning a lower-level employee, constituted just cause for dismissal.

The employee's claim for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages was dismissed.

The employer's counterclaim for an unpaid loan was also dismissed, as the loan was held by a separate numbered company, not the employer.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to enforce a settlement regarding farm properties, the respondent and third party sought their costs.

The applicant argued that success was divided and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful as he obtained the order enforcing the settlement.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the respondent and $2,500 to the third party.

The appellant homeowner appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent contractor $20,046 for home renovations.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in fact-finding, contract interpretation, applying the Consumer Protection Act, and violated natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had reached an oral agreement on the amount owing.

The court also upheld the finding that the appellant could not rely on the Consumer Protection Act to void the contract, as she had specifically requested an oral agreement to avoid paying HST.

Claims of bias and inadequate reasons were also dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an undefended trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the Respondent's conduct amounted to bad faith, including evading service, failing to provide financial disclosure, and engaging in disturbing and malicious behaviour.

The Respondent contended his conduct did not reach the level of bad faith and that he was partially successful at trial.

The court found the Respondent's protracted and egregious conduct, including a "catch-me-if-you-can" approach to financial disclosure and malicious actions, met the test for bad faith, warranting an award of full recovery costs to the Applicant.

The court dismissed the Respondent's arguments regarding partial success and the Applicant's offers to settle.

The plaintiff, Anderson Sheet Metal Ltd., brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant, Comtract Air Compressors Inc., for unpaid invoices.

The central issue was whether an email exchange between the parties refreshed the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the email exchange constituted a clear and unequivocal acknowledgment of the debt for some, but not all, outstanding invoices.

The court also determined the appropriate interest rate for the successful claims.

The Respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a family law matter concerning the division of farm properties and assets.

The Applicant argued that no binding agreement existed due to missing essential terms, or alternatively, that the Respondent failed to carry out the terms.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached, with the parties being ad idem on all essential terms, and that the Respondent had not failed to complete the transaction.

The Respondent's motion to enforce the settlement was granted, with specific modifications to the draft minutes of settlement regarding interest, property transfer to a third party, and a first charge.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a summary judgment motion and the underlying action, where the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing unsupported allegations of intentional misconduct and an early settlement offer.

The court rejected substantial indemnity, finding the allegations did not constitute fraud or dishonesty and that an early offer does not automatically warrant elevated costs.

Assessing costs on a partial indemnity basis, the court reduced the quantum sought by the defendant, citing the assignment of two senior lawyers to a moderately complex and relatively straightforward matter.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.