William M. LeMay

The appellants appealed an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the TTC Insurance Company Limited as a defendant.

The appellants argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the limitation period for an indemnification claim does not begin to run until a demand is made and the insurer fails to satisfy it, following the Markel line of authorities.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside a default judgment and writ of execution, the court determined the issue of costs.

Although the defendants were granted an indulgence (which normally results in costs payable to the opposing party), the court awarded costs to the defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel engaged in conduct that unnecessarily complicated and lengthened the proceedings, including insisting on an overly high legal standard, conducting unnecessary cross-examinations of the defendant and his counsel, and sending misleading correspondence to the enforcement office.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' partial indemnity costs fixed at $23,798.36.

The moving party father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two children, one of whom has significant autism spectrum disorder.

The responding party mother opposed the motion and sought to limit the father to supervised access, arguing he could not safely manage the child's needs.

After the motion was argued, both parties sought to introduce new evidence.

The court admitted some of the new evidence but excluded photographs.

The court found that the father could safely manage the child's needs and that unsupervised access was in the children's best interests, ordering a transition to unsupervised access.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a construction dispute.

The plaintiff had noted the defendants in default despite receiving an email from the individual defendant requesting notice before being noted in default.

Applying the five-part test from Intact Insurance, the court found that the defendants moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the default, and that the interests of justice favoured a determination on the merits.

The court set aside the default judgment and ordered the return of monies collected pursuant to a writ of seizure.

The plaintiff, Tassone, brought an action against 407 ETR and its lawyers.

While the action against 407 ETR had settled, Tassone's counsel later subpoenaed 407 ETR's legal department representatives in the ongoing action against the lawyers, alleging unlawful conduct and seeking to breach solicitor-client privilege. 407 ETR successfully moved to quash these subpoenas.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found that a prior mutual release did not bar 407 ETR's claim for costs related to the subpoena motion.

The costs claimed by 407 ETR were deemed reasonable, with a minor deduction for duplicate student time.

Due to Tassone's unsubstantiated allegations of unlawful conduct and aggressive, unjustified attempts to breach privilege, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to 407 ETR.

Following a family law trial, the court addressed outstanding issues regarding the form of spousal support and costs.

The applicant sought to pay spousal support as a lump sum to allow for a set-off against costs owed by the respondent, citing the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct and the need for a clean break.

The court agreed, awarding a lump sum of $114,064 in spousal support.

Due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and the applicant's better offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant $104,562.10 in costs, which were ordered to be set off against the lump sum spousal support.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners, who continued to smoke on their balcony in violation of a newly passed rule prohibiting smoking on exclusive use balconies.

The respondents argued that they owned a portion of the balcony exclusively, that the rule was improperly passed, and that the rule was unreasonable or should have included a grandparenting clause.

The court found that the entire balcony was an exclusive use common element, the rule was properly passed, and the rule was reasonable given the context of second-hand smoke and nuisance.

The court granted the application and ordered the respondents to cease smoking on their balcony immediately.

The plaintiff's home and its contents were destroyed in a fire.

The plaintiff had a $1,000,000 home insurance policy with the defendants.

The defendants paid out over $834,000, but the plaintiff sought the remainder of the policy limits, claiming additional construction costs, administrative expenses for acting as his own general contractor, additional living expenses, and higher valuations for his destroyed contents, including an art collection.

The plaintiff also sought general damages.

The court found that because the plaintiff chose to build a significantly larger home rather than replacing his original home, he was only entitled to the actual cash value of the original home, entitling the defendants to a set-off for depreciation.

The court dismissed the claims for administrative expenses, additional living expenses, and general damages, finding the plaintiff responsible for construction delays and the insurer's conduct reasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff an additional $74,936.49 for the contents of the house, resulting in a net judgment of $25,468.64 after applying the defendants' set-off.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $10,000 to his former brokerage pursuant to a training repayment clause in his contract.

He argued the clause was an unenforceable penalty and that he received no training.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding training was provided and linked to a $2,000 monthly stipend.

The court held the $10,000 repayment was a genuine pre-estimate of damages, not an extravagant or unconscionable penalty, given the difficulty of quantifying training costs and the unusual monthly stipend provided.

A young offender was convicted of manslaughter for his role as a lookout during a fatal shooting in a fast food restaurant washroom.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, while the defence sought a sentence of time served with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied enhanced credit, finding no exceptional circumstances, and sentenced the offender to two years and nine months in closed custody, less time served, followed by two years of probation.

In this criminal trial ruling on a blended voir dire, the Crown sought to admit evidence from other former students and cross-count evidence as similar fact evidence in relation to allegations of sexualized conduct by a teacher toward adolescent male students.

Applying the governing similar fact framework, the court held that the proposed evidence invited impermissible propensity reasoning, raised substantial prejudice concerns, and risked derailing the trial into a character inquiry.

The court further found an air of reality to collusion or innocent taint among several witnesses and held the Crown failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence was untainted.

The proposed similar fact evidence and count-to-count evidence were excluded, although certain direct evidence relating to the charged events remained admissible.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a high school teacher engaged in sexualized communications with one student and sexually touched another student.

The court held that corroboration was not required, but found significant frailties, inconsistencies, omissions, and concerns about possible tainting of witness evidence through pre-trial discussions.

Applying the governing principles on credibility, reliability, delayed disclosure, and collusion, the court found the evidence on the core allegations left a reasonable doubt.

Acquittals were entered on all four counts, including telecommunication for the purpose of facilitating child pornography, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

The appellant appealed his eight-month sentence for impaired driving, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the judge erred by sentencing him in absentia.

The Superior Court dismissed these grounds, finding the plea was voluntary, counsel had explained the immigration consequences, and the judge reasonably exercised his discretion to sentence the appellant after he absconded.

However, the appeal was allowed in part because the sentencing judge failed to consider the collateral immigration consequences of the sentence.

The sentence was reduced to six months less a day to account for these consequences.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 4.3 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

She travelled from Jamaica with her two young children, whose presence the court found was used as a cover to lessen the chances of detection.

The court rejected arguments that the offence was not for personal gain, that systemic racial biases applied, or that exceptional circumstances warranted a departure from the standard sentencing range.

The offender was sentenced to 7 years' incarceration, less 9 days for pre-sentence custody.

The plaintiff brought actions claiming ownership of a 1973 Dino Ferrari and interests in his parents' motel business, alleging improper conversion of assets by his mother's attorneys for property.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the motel was a partnership between the parents, the plaintiff was merely an employee, and the Ferrari was an asset of the motel business despite being registered in the plaintiff's name.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment, oppression under the Business Corporations Act, and conversion of personal property, granting summary judgment in favour of the defendants.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage with no children.

The applicant sought a divorce, equalization of net family property, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the divorce, claimed a constructive trust interest in the home, and sought spousal support.

The court granted the divorce, finding no merit in the respondent's procedural objections.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim, as the respondent's renovations did not increase the home's value.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $18,968.36 to the respondent and awarded her needs-based spousal support of $540 per month, imputing an income of $35,000 to her.

The applicant was granted sole possession of the matrimonial home.

The plaintiffs, investors in a real estate development, sought to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against three lots and to register a preservation order regarding a vendor take-back mortgage on title.

The property had been sold to a third-party developer, Brampton G&A. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the parties had previously agreed not to register orders on title, the property was an investment property rather than unique, and the existing preservation order requiring mortgage payments to be paid into court provided sufficient protection without encumbering the third party's title.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the parties' 13-year-old son to move with her and his younger sisters to Ajax.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing the son should remain in Mississauga where he attends school and plays high-level soccer.

The court conducted a confidential interview with the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court determined that the son should remain in Mississauga on an interim basis to minimize disruption to his schooling and soccer routines, but ordered a robust access schedule to ensure he maintains contact with his mother and sisters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the self-represented defendant in civil contempt of three previous court orders.

The orders required the defendant to remove defamatory online broadcasts and videos about the plaintiffs and prohibited him from posting further defamatory material.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the orders were clear, the defendant had actual knowledge of them, and he intentionally breached them by failing to remove the posts and by publishing new defamatory content.

The defendant was found in contempt, with a penalty hearing to be scheduled.

In a long-running dispute over a solicitor's account, the solicitor objected to the client's late delivery of a supplementary expert report regarding alleged spoliation of computer files.

The case management judge found that the client's counsel breached prior case management directions by serving the report late and in an obscure manner.

However, because the solicitor had also been granted an extension to file her own expert report, the court admitted the client's late report to ensure procedural fairness, while adjourning the trial and setting strict new timelines.