William M. LeMay

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendant was substantially successful in defeating the plaintiff law firm's claim to enforce a liquidated damages clause, the court assessed costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $46,750.08, while the plaintiff argued for $10,000.00.

The court found the motion to be of moderate complexity but noted some duplication of effort by the defendant's counsel.

Costs were fixed at $35,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a decision dismissing the plaintiff law firm's claim for liquidated damages against a former partner, the parties sought directions on consequential issues.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $897.15 in interest for withholding the defendant's capital account funds, exercising its discretion under section 130 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay her portion of the actual costs to remove her from the firm's corporate and partnership registers, rather than an estimated amount.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendants to set aside a charging order in favour of their former counsel.

The former counsel sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on unaccepted offers to settle and the defendants' unsupported allegations of fraud against him.

The court refused to defer the costs determination to a future assessment hearing.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the former counsel, finding that the defendants' unproven and unsupported allegations of fraud warranted sanction, and fixed the costs at $5,400.

The defendants were successful at trial in defending against the plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligence, and nervous shock.

The defendants sought costs of $82,306.68 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff argued that no costs should be payable.

The court found that the defendants' offer to settle and the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, which needlessly extended the proceedings, justified an enhanced costs award.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that his self-represented status or financial circumstances warranted a reduction in costs.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs fixed at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Peel Police Services Board for assault, battery, and harassment spanning from 2000 to 2005.

The claims centered on numerous traffic stops, a 2003 arrest where the plaintiff alleged an officer planted a knife, and a 2005 search warrant execution where the plaintiff was tasered multiple times.

The court found that while one officer had planted evidence in 2003, the plaintiff suffered no provable injury to support a claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Regarding the 2005 search warrant, the court held that the police had reasonable grounds to execute the warrant and that the use of the taser was justified under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The action was dismissed.

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

The applicant sought leave to introduce fresh evidence on an appeal of an arbitration decision concerning the children's school.

The fresh evidence pertained to the applicant's acquisition of the proposed private school, his daily presence there, and the school's operational status during the pandemic.

The respondent opposed the admission of this evidence.

The court applied the flexible fresh evidence test applicable in family law cases involving children's welfare and granted the motion, finding the evidence was new, credible, and potentially relevant to the appeal's outcome, particularly given the original arbitration was a close call.

The plaintiff, MDG Newmarket Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce minutes of settlement against the defendant, Pierre Pascal, related to a rental contract for HVAC equipment.

Mr. Pascal counterclaimed, alleging misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and statutory breaches, including under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The court noted an ongoing class action against MDG involving similar contracts.

The court temporarily stayed MDG's action and referred the matter to the Regional Senior Judge in the Southwest Region to determine if it should be transferred or considered part of the class action, citing concerns about inconsistent findings and judicial efficiency.

The Defendants brought a motion to set aside a charging order previously granted to their former solicitor, John Gray, over costs owed by the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants alleged fraud and newly discovered facts, claiming Gray wrote off accounts, that funds were not actually held by Plaintiffs' counsel, and that Gray failed to comply with Law Society by-laws.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to substantiate the allegations of fraud or improper conduct by Gray.

The court clarified that accounting practices and Law Society compliance issues were not grounds to set aside the charging order, but rather matters for a costs assessment or the Law Society.

The decision also provided instructions for the delivery of the real estate file and restricted further motions regarding the costs dispute between the Defendants and Mr. Gray without leave of the court.

The plaintiff law firm sought to enforce a liquidated damages clause against a departing partner.

The defendant partner counterclaimed for repayment of a capital account loan and unpaid draw.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the liquidated damages clause inapplicable as the defendant's departure qualified as a retirement under the partnership agreement.

The court allowed the defendant's counterclaim for the capital account repayment and interest on the portion withheld by the firm, but dismissed the claim for the unpaid draw.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former romantic partner and her current partner for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligence, and nervous shock following his arrest for forcible confinement.

The arrest stemmed from a domestic incident where the plaintiff refused to return the defendant's keys and engaged in controlling behaviour.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the defendant had reasonable and probable grounds to contact the police out of concern for her safety, and that she did not initiate the prosecution or act with malice.

The plaintiff's ancillary claims for money and property were also dismissed for lack of evidence.

Intact Insurance Company appealed an arbitrator's decision that found a motorcycle passenger and driver were spouses under the Insurance Act, obliging Intact to pay accident benefits.

The passenger was in a committed five-year relationship with the driver but maintained a separate residence and was still married to another individual.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator committed an extricable error of law by applying family law principles to the definition of 'spouse' for insurance purposes and by failing to adhere to the bright-line test requiring parties to have lived together in the same residence for three years to be considered spouses under the Insurance Act.

The court applied a correctness standard of review.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for a Mareva injunction.

The Plaintiff had brought a second Mareva injunction motion, which was largely resolved on an uncontested basis.

The parties disagreed on whether the resulting order was on consent and who should bear the costs.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Defendant sought costs against the Plaintiff, including personally against his counsel, alleging improper transfers of funds.

The court found the Defendant to be the successful party on the motion, though with mixed success, and awarded her $7,500.00 in partial indemnity costs from the Plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the Plaintiff's counsel personally, emphasizing the high threshold for such awards.

The court fixed costs for a successful motion to strike brought by the plaintiff.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs, but the court limited the award to partial indemnity, finding no conduct warranting enhanced costs.

Considering the motion's simplicity, discrete issues, and some duplication in counsel's work, the court awarded the amount the plaintiff was prepared to pay, $3,606.50, as reasonable partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs for a pre-discovery document production motion in a case-managed proceeding.

The defendant, who sought additional document production, was deemed the more successful party, though not entirely successful.

The plaintiff's unreasonable positions regarding document relevance and production obligations were found to have lengthened the motion.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments against a costs award based on the informal, letter-based process or the defendant's prior unpaid costs orders.

Partial indemnity costs of $1,000.00 were awarded to the defendant, with the possibility of set-off against any costs owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim child and spousal support order, arguing that his business income had significantly declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had 'better information' as contemplated by the original order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information provided by the respondent was incomplete, lacked independent expert corroboration, and did not constitute the 'better information' required to justify varying an interim support order.

The court also declined to adjust section 7 expenses, leaving that issue for the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and a non-depletion order regarding the respondent's RRSPs.

The applicant, a flight attendant laid off due to the pandemic, sought support based on an imputed income of $140,000 for the respondent, who had been unemployed since 2016.

The court imputed an income of $90,000 to the respondent due to underemployment and ordered interim spousal support of $562 per month.

The request for a non-depletion order was dismissed as the court found the respondent was living off his assets rather than intentionally depleting them.

In an ongoing estate dispute between siblings, the self-represented defendant sought to introduce late documentation and requested broad document production from the plaintiff on the eve of trial.

The case management judge dismissed the requests, finding the proposed documents were irrelevant, attempted to re-litigate previously decided issues, and lacked proportionality.

The court noted the defendant had been provided significant accommodations and indulgences, but the requests appeared designed to delay the trial.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.

The plaintiff moved to strike portions of the defence and counterclaim alleging details of the parties' sexual relationship and the plaintiff's sexual proclivities.

The court held those allegations were not scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious under Rule 25.11 and were at least arguably relevant to the characterization of the relationship, the defence to the fraud and contract claims, and the counterclaim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Applying the Rule 21 plain and obvious test, the court found it was not plain and obvious that the impugned pleadings could not support the defence or counterclaim, including a developing harassment claim.

The motion was dismissed, subject to a direction that the defendant amend the counterclaim to expressly plead negligence.