William M. LeMay

The defendant sought to proceed with a summary judgment motion, but an issue remained regarding the cross-examination of experts.

The plaintiff argued the matter was too complicated for summary judgment and should proceed to trial.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the defendant was entitled to have its motion heard.

The court directed that the experts be cross-examined in open court on all issues relating to their reports, not just their qualifications, to allow the court to exercise its gatekeeper function regarding the admissibility of the evidence.

This decision addresses claims of privilege over documents in an ongoing action for the assessment of a solicitor's account.

The applicant solicitor sought full disclosure of a draft report from SB Partners Corporate Finance, a memorandum from W. Grant Buchan-Terrell, and accounts of Ray Niejadlik, which the respondent client had redacted.

The court found that the client had waived privilege over the SB Partners report by intending to use disclosed portions to challenge the solicitor's work, and ordered its full disclosure.

For the Buchan-Terrell memorandum, some redactions were maintained due to litigation strategy or unrelated advice, while others were ordered disclosed.

Most of Ray Niejadlik's invoices were ordered disclosed, as claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege failed, and the Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege were not met, except for the April 2009 invoice which was protected by solicitor-client privilege due to counsel's involvement.

The client's request for a sealing order was denied.

The accused, a young person, was on trial for first-degree murder.

This decision provides reasons for the judge's instructions to the jury regarding the use of post-incident conduct evidence.

The Crown sought to use this evidence for all elements of the offence, including planning, deliberation, and intent to kill.

The defence argued for a "no probative value" instruction.

The court ruled that post-incident conduct was not relevant to the shooters' intent to kill or whether the murder was planned and deliberate, citing risks of speculation and inferring intent.

However, the court found the evidence relevant to whether the accused aided the shooters in carrying out their plan and the accused's knowledge of the plan, particularly regarding flight and disposal of weapons.

This decision addresses the costs of a prior motion concerning the plaintiff's requests for additional documents and answers to undertakings and refusals.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing for divided success as fourteen questions were ordered answered.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in attempting to re-litigate proportionality issues, asking questions beyond the scope of follow-up undertakings, and providing an incomplete motion record.

The court found the defendant largely successful on the substantive issues, particularly regarding the plaintiff's attempts to re-litigate and expand the scope of discovery.

While the plaintiff achieved some success in obtaining answers to specific questions, the overall conduct and the defendant's success on major points warranted a costs award against the plaintiff.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $2,500.00 in costs.

The accused was charged with human trafficking, receiving a material benefit, procuring, assault, and sexual assault in relation to two complainants.

The Crown alleged the accused recruited the complainants, who were both drug addicts, to work in the sex trade and exploited them by providing drugs in exchange for their earnings.

The court found the accused guilty of human trafficking and procuring for both complainants, and guilty of receiving a material benefit in relation to one complainant.

The accused was acquitted of assault, sexual assault, and receiving a material benefit in relation to the other complainant due to frailties in her testimony.

The young person, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown alleged the young person aided and abetted two others in the planned and deliberate shooting of the victim in a restaurant washroom.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, assessing whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict based on the circumstantial evidence.

Finding sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer the young person knew of the plan and acted as a lookout, the court dismissed the motion.

A young person, A.D., charged with first-degree murder, brought a voir dire application to determine the admissibility of two statements: a conversation with his mother and an interview with Cst.

Irwin.

The court ruled that the conversation with his mother was a privileged consultation under section 146(2)(b)(iii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and was inadmissible for any purpose.

The statement to Cst.

Irwin was found to be voluntary and admissible for cross-examination, with a specific portion excluded due to concerns about threats or inducements related to sentencing.

The court emphasized the enhanced procedural protections for young persons and the privacy of consultations with parents.

This costs endorsement addresses three motions within a consolidated proceeding.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Adair parties (defendants) against the Pichelli parties (plaintiffs) for their successful summary judgment motions, finding that the allegations of fraud and malfeasance were unsubstantiated.

For the summary judgment motion brought by the Vuletic defendants against the Pichelli parties, costs were reserved to the trial judge due to unresolved factual disputes, including an allegation of forgery.

Finally, for a motion to vary a previous decision regarding Ante Kegalj, the Pichelli parties were awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly reduced from their claim, due to the straightforward nature of the motion and issues with their bill of costs.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's late service of three expert reports, despite previous directions for one, in advance of a summary judgment motion.

The court expressed concerns about delay and good faith, cancelling a conference call and directing an in-person appearance to determine the admissibility of the reports, the plaintiff's reliance on multiple experts, and potential schedule adjustments.

In a family law trial following a 10-year separation, the court resolved issues of child custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court maintained the existing joint custody and primary residence arrangement for the child.

Income was imputed to both parties: to the applicant for hiding business income and failing to provide financial disclosure, and to the respondent for taking voluntary early retirement.

The court denied the respondent's claim for an unequal division of net family property but ordered the applicant to make an equalization payment.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant was not entitled to the interim spousal support she had received for years and ordered her to repay $67,860 in retroactive spousal support overpayments.

This endorsement addresses a case management motion concerning outstanding follow-up questions from discovery and the timing of the plaintiff's expert report.

The plaintiff sought further answers from the defendant, TD Canada Trust, regarding security protocols and risk assessments following an alleged assault at an ATM vestibule.

The court applied principles of proportionality and finality, rejecting many of the plaintiff's requests for information deemed beyond the scope of appropriate discovery or based on information that should have been obtained earlier.

The court also found the plaintiff responsible for significant delays in the litigation and ordered the expert report to be produced promptly, with strict timelines, while allowing for a supplemental report if new information warranted it.

This decision provides further directions in an ongoing estates matter concerning the estate of Terrence Blanks.

The court addressed the disposition of funds held in trust by an interested party, Mr. MacKenzie, and the resolution of his account.

Key issues included the procedural status of the defendant's counsel, Mr. Mercer, who had filed a factum but was not formally on record, and the appropriate mechanism for proving Mr. MacKenzie's account.

The court expressed concerns about initiating a separate proceeding for the account, preferring to retain jurisdiction within the existing case management.

A proposal from the plaintiff to assign any chose in action against Mr. MacKenzie to the defendant was put forward for future argument.

The client brought an assessment of the solicitor's account, which had been ongoing for ten years.

The parties sought further production and particulars from each other.

The client argued the solicitor should be estopped from seeking production due to delay, which the court dismissed, noting ongoing preservation obligations.

The court applied the principle of proportionality to limit the scope of discovery and ordered both parties to provide specific documents and particulars to ensure each side knew the case to meet, despite the solicitor bearing the ultimate burden of proof.

The Applicant, Ekaterina Karmanova, and the Respondent, Zurab Gugushvili, were in a common-law relationship.

The Applicant sought spousal support, a constructive trust or resulting trust over a condominium solely titled in the Respondent's name, and general damages for alleged cruel conduct.

The court found that the parties cohabited for a sufficient period to trigger spousal support obligations and that a joint family venture existed regarding the condominium.

However, a proprietary interest in the condominium was denied, and a monetary remedy on a fee-for-service basis was awarded for the Applicant's contributions to condominium expenses.

General damages for alleged cruel conduct were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and mutual inappropriate behavior.

The Applicant was awarded modest transitional spousal support.

The defendants successfully moved to discharge two construction liens from their property, while issues regarding the Limitations Act were left to trial.

The court determined costs for the motion.

The court found the defendants were the successful parties, as they succeeded on the bulk of the issues that consumed the most court time.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants should have simply posted bonds, noting that the plaintiff's liens were without merit and the defendants were entitled to seek their removal.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of $21,253.34 on a partial indemnity basis, with costs for the limitations issue fixed at $3,000 in the cause.

This is a case management decision in an estates matter concerning the estate of Terrence Blanks, providing directions on several outstanding issues.

The court addressed the removal of estate trustees, the disposition of estate chattels (Rolex watch and ring), the management of a lawyer's trust account and associated fees, and the procedural timetable for various claims including debts, trustee compensation, and occupation rent.

The court ordered a process for sealed bids on chattels, deferred a decision on the lawyer's account pending disclosure, directed the lawyer to pay trust funds into court, set a detailed schedule for particulars and production for future trial issues, and approved interim disbursements of $25,000 to each beneficiary.

The applicant and respondent, common-law partners with two children, sought judicial determination on two outstanding issues following a consent order on custody and most access.

The respondent sought two additional days of access and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court granted one minor access extension (on consent) but denied the second, more significant access request, finding it not to be in the children's best interests due to the respondent's post-night shift demeanor and the chaotic impact on the children's routine.

Consequently, the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody, and no change was made to the child support quantum.

This decision addresses a motion brought by the plaintiffs (Pichelli Parties and Caroti Parties) to amend previous summary judgment reasons and for the judge to recuse herself from re-hearing a specific summary judgment motion.

The original reasons had been released without oral submissions from the plaintiffs on the Kegalj summary judgment motion, which had been previously adjourned.

The court found it had jurisdiction to amend its decision before a formal order was entered, as the failure to hear oral submissions constituted a miscarriage of justice due to a violation of the *audi alteram partem* rule.

The court also determined that a different judge should hear the re-argued summary judgment motion due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, while the original judge would remain as the case management judge.

This action arose from a real estate transaction oversight where the Mundenchiras inadvertently received title to both halves of a subdivided property instead of just the one they purchased.

The Mundenchiras, as plaintiffs by cross-claim, sued their lawyer, Mr. Suvendu Goswami, for negligence and sought substantial damages for business losses, property value reduction, carrying costs, and mental distress.

The court found that Mr. Goswami breached his duty of care by failing to ensure good marketable title.

However, most of the Mundenchiras' damage claims were dismissed as not reasonably foreseeable or factually unproven, particularly those related to speculative secondary transactions.

The court only awarded a refund of a $5,000 retainer paid to Mr. Goswami to rectify the title error.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to follow-up questions posed in a written examination for discovery, following an earlier oral examination and a previous court order regarding refusals.

The underlying action involves an alleged assault in the defendant bank's ATM vestibule.

The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to conduct a full written discovery after an oral discovery without leave, but were permitted to ask reasonable follow-up questions arising from undertakings and refusals.

The court applied the principle of proportionality, limiting the scope of questions primarily to the specific branch where the incident occurred, and provided a detailed schedule ruling on each of the 40 disputed questions.