William M. LeMay

This is a costs endorsement following a pleadings motion where the Plaintiff largely succeeded in striking portions of the Defendants' pleadings.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $122,000.00.

The Defendants argued for each side to bear its own costs or for costs limited to $5,000.00, citing mixed success, leave to amend, and the Plaintiff's procedural disorganization.

The court found the Plaintiff to be the successful party but reduced the costs significantly, noting that both parties contributed to lengthening the proceeding and that the Plaintiff's initial cost claim was unreasonable.

The court ordered the Defendants to pay $30,000.00 in costs to the Plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion seeking directions on the interpretation of a previous order for the seizure and imaging of electronic devices, arguing it should implicitly incorporate standard Anton Piller Order protections and that Deloitte Inc. should be deemed an independent supervising solicitor.

The plaintiff resisted, asserting the original order was clear and granted on notice, not ex-parte.

The court dismissed the defendants' primary requests, holding that the order, having been granted after a full hearing with both parties present, did not automatically include ex-parte Anton Piller terms or appoint Deloitte as an independent supervising solicitor.

The court provided further directions for managing the collected electronic documents, including a timeline for the defendants to review MD5hash documents and the option for them to appoint their own expert to assist with keyword searches.

The applicant sought an interim order to continue residing in a property following the death of her common-law spouse, pending a trial of an issue regarding the estate's potential interest in the property.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the estate did not have a vested interest in the property, which was owned by a third party (the deceased's brother).

The court lacked jurisdiction under the Succession Law Reform Act to grant exclusive possession of property not owned by the estate.

The applicant was ordered to vacate the property by a specified date, with interim directions regarding expenses remaining in effect until then.

The plaintiff, TSI International Inc., brought a motion to strike significant portions of the defendants' Statement of Defence under Rules 25.11 and 21.

The defendants' pleadings included defences of abuse of process and the "clean hands" doctrine, as well as counterclaims for wrongful and constructive dismissal.

The court dismissed the defendants' abuse of process and clean hands defences under Rule 21, finding them to have no reasonable chance of success.

Consequently, numerous paragraphs of the Statement of Defence related to these dismissed defences were struck without leave to amend, except where relevant to the defendants' wrongful and constructive dismissal claims.

The court also clarified that prior judicial findings from an injunction motion do not constitute final factual determinations for the purpose of striking pleadings.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought an application seeking a declaration that a respondent, Carlo Casamirro Nonis, owned 50% of the matrimonial home and an order for its partition and sale.

The co-respondent, Adina Nonis, resisted, claiming Carlo held his interest in trust for her.

The court found that Carlo did not hold his interest in trust for Adina.

Consequently, the transfer of Carlo's share to Adina, which occurred shortly after RBC demanded payment on Carlo's guaranteed debts, was deemed a fraudulent conveyance under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The application was granted, confirming Carlo's 50% ownership and ordering the partition and sale of the property.

This decision addresses costs following a ten-day family law trial.

The court found the applicant, Dusko Janjic, engaged in bad faith conduct and unreasonable behaviour, including deliberate overstatement of parenting issues, interference with the mother-child relationship, inappropriate communications, and disobedience of court orders.

The respondent, Jelena Janjic, was the successful party and was awarded full indemnity costs, which included compensation for her solicitor's preparatory work and her own time as a self-represented litigant, as well as disbursements.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing the presumptive entitlement of the successful party to costs and the impact of unreasonable or bad faith conduct on the award.

The plaintiff, Mohanjit Singh Jassal, sued the defendants, Pawan Kaith, Bibi Kaith, and Kundan Kaith, for specific performance or damages arising from an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a residential property.

The plaintiff alleged the APS was binding and never rescinded, while the defendants claimed it was orally rescinded shortly after signing due to a change in family circumstances.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony unreliable and concluded that the parties had mutually agreed to rescind the APS.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The court also determined, in obiter, that even if the APS had not been rescinded, specific performance would not have been granted as the property was not unique, and only nominal damages would have been awarded due to the availability of similar properties.

The applicants, two of the estate trustees, brought a motion for directions under Rule 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to wind up the estate of Maria Christina Sampogna.

The motion addressed various disputes between the siblings, who were all beneficiaries and executors, regarding estate expenses, household contents, jewellery, and outstanding costs awards from previous litigation.

The court provided detailed directions for the distribution of assets, allocation of expenses, and payment of costs, ultimately aiming to finalize the estate administration and allow the applicants to be removed as trustees.

The court rejected allegations of theft against the applicants and ordered the respondents to bear personal responsibility for certain costs due to their unreasonable conduct.

Following a prior trial decision determining support obligations, the court invited the parties to make limited submissions addressing potential calculation errors in the support calculations.

The applicant instead filed an affidavit containing new documentation and income calculations that had not been part of the trial record.

The court held that the submissions process was restricted to identifying mathematical errors and did not permit the introduction of new evidence.

As the applicant had previously been given opportunities to present documentation during the trial, the court refused to consider the new materials.

The original support calculations therefore remained unchanged.

Following divorce, the parties litigated corollary relief including custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court found the parties had significant credibility issues and incomplete financial disclosure.

Sole custody of the children was granted to the respondent, but the applicant was granted a graduated return to unsupervised access based on evidence from supervised access reports and the principle of maximizing contact under the Divorce Act.

Income was imputed to the applicant based on business bank deposits due to inadequate disclosure, resulting in retroactive and ongoing child support.

Claims for spousal support and equalization were largely denied, with only limited transitional spousal support recognized.

Following earlier reasons granting partial default judgment in a commercial dispute, the plaintiffs made further submissions seeking a declaration that the defendants owed them a fiduciary duty and requesting reconsideration of punitive damages.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing fiduciary relationships, emphasizing that fiduciary duties arise from specific relationships involving discretion, unilateral power, and vulnerability, and generally require a voluntary assumption of loyalty obligations.

The court held that the parties were arm’s‑length commercial actors engaged in a business relationship for mutual profit, and that the equitable trust remedies previously recognized were imposed after the fact to prevent unjust enrichment rather than to establish fiduciary obligations.

As a result, the court declined to declare the existence of a fiduciary duty and refused to revisit the earlier determination on punitive damages.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child over a prolonged period beginning when the complainant was approximately five years old and continuing into adolescence.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony describing repeated sexual acts occurring in the family home and later in the accused’s apartment.

The accused denied the allegations and called several witnesses to challenge the plausibility of the events and his opportunity to commit the offences.

Applying the framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence as inconsistent and implausible, found the complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies, and concluded the evidence established the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a three‑day family law trial concerning retroactive support and related issues, the court addressed the issue of costs under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that the respondent should pay her costs, while the respondent sought costs on the basis that he was substantially more successful and had taken more reasonable positions.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, the complexity and importance of the issues, the reasonableness of settlement offers, and the respondent’s greater success at trial.

Although the court found the applicant had acted in bad faith by delaying her claims for more than ten years, it declined to award full indemnity costs because the respondent was not completely successful.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in favour of the respondent.

On an interim motion within a motion to change a final parenting order, the moving party sought interim sole custody, reduced access for the other parent, and increased child support.

The court declined to alter the existing joint custody order on an interim basis, emphasizing that a final order was already in place and the evidentiary record was contradictory and incomplete.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending sole custody to the moving party was not given determinative weight because it had not been tested through cross‑examination.

The court maintained the existing custody and access arrangements pending trial but increased child support modestly due to changes in parenting time and circumstances.

Following a long‑delayed family law application commenced more than twelve years after separation, the court determined claims for equalization, retroactive child support, spousal support, and disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court held the equalization claim was statute‑barred under the Family Law Act limitation period.

Applying the framework from DBS v. SRG, the court awarded retroactive child support back to 2008 when the payor unilaterally altered mortgage payments that had formed part of an informal support arrangement.

The court rejected claims for spousal support under both compensatory and needs‑based models, finding no career disadvantage or unmet need and emphasizing the long passage of time since separation.

The matrimonial home was ordered to be appraised and either bought out or sold, with adjustments for child support arrears and funds withdrawn from home equity.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial default judgment after the defendants were noted in default in a dispute arising from a failed property management investment venture.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that the defendants held several properties in trust and requested punitive damages.

The court held that a purchase money resulting trust arose for three properties where the plaintiffs directly advanced funds for the purchase but did not take legal title.

For two additional properties, the court found that the elements of unjust enrichment were satisfied and imposed a constructive trust.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the defendants’ misconduct did not reach the threshold of malicious and high‑handed conduct required for such damages.

The applicant sought enforcement in Ontario of a commission issued by a New Jersey court requiring a non‑party witness to produce documents and attend for a deposition relating to corporate farm assets relevant to U.S. divorce proceedings.

The respondents resisted on the basis that the request was intrusive, unnecessary, and contrary to privacy interests.

Applying the criteria for enforcing foreign commissions, including relevance, necessity, specificity, and comity, the court held that most of the requested documentary production and questioning should be enforced.

However, several areas of questioning were refused or restricted as speculative or overly intrusive.

Enforcement was conditioned on confidentiality undertakings equivalent to Ontario’s deemed undertaking rule and limits were imposed on the scope, location, and timing of the deposition.

Following a successful civil action, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered whether the judgment obtained exceeded the settlement offer once prejudgment interest was calculated.

The plaintiff argued that the court should exercise its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to increase the prejudgment interest rate above the statutory presumption of 0.5%.

The court declined to do so, finding no compelling reason to depart from the statutory rate and noting potential prejudice to the defendant.

Because the judgment plus interest did not exceed the settlement offer, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that required him to apply for a Certificate of Appointment as Estate Trustee for his late father's estate.

The responding party, a foreign judgment creditor, had obtained the ex parte order to facilitate the enforcement of a $44 million US judgment against the estate.

The court found that while the responding party had made adequate disclosure on the ex parte motion, it lacked standing to seek an order for assistance under the Rules of Civil Procedure because it did not yet have a crystallized, domesticated judgment in Ontario.

The ex parte order was therefore set aside.