William M. LeMay

The court issued a post-decision endorsement providing further directions on child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

The applicant submitted an affidavit that went beyond the court's previous request by attempting to challenge the court's interpretation of prior orders, which the court refused to consider.

The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit responding to the applicant's evidence on actual payments made, hockey expenses, and the 18-year-old child's post-secondary plans, failing which the applicant's evidence would be accepted.

The accused, Wayne Isaacs and Azhar Hussain, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in their criminal fraud trial.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, considering total delay, defence delay, exceptional circumstances (discrete events and case complexity), and transitional provisions.

The court found significant defence-caused delay due to issues with retaining counsel and bringing necessary applications.

While the total delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling, the case was deemed particularly complex, and the Crown had taken reasonable steps to expedite the matter under the pre-Jordan legal framework.

The court found no evidence of actual prejudice related to the delay.

Consequently, the motions to stay proceedings were denied for both accused.

The defendant Sikh Lehar International Organization brought a motion to set aside, discharge, or lift a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against its property at 79 Bramsteele Road.

The CPL was obtained by the plaintiffs, Sukhinder Sandhu and 2207190 Inc., who claim to have purchased the property and seek specific performance.

Sikh Lehar needed to refinance significant mortgages maturing in November 2016 and argued the CPL prevented this.

The court found that the CPL should not be fully discharged as the plaintiffs had a reasonable claim to an interest in the property and specific performance was a potential remedy.

However, the court determined that the equities favored modifying the CPL to permit refinancing up to $6,500,000.00, with the new mortgage taking priority, to prevent significant prejudice to Sikh Lehar and potential foreclosure.

The plaintiffs' litigation conduct and delay in registering the CPL were not deemed sufficient grounds for its discharge.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for his three children.

Key issues included the applicant's income, whether an adult child (Ivana) remained a child of the marriage for support purposes while pursuing a second degree, and the calculation of support and arrears for another adult child (Jelena) and a minor child (Luka).

The court found no material change in circumstances to impute a higher income to the applicant beyond a conceded increase.

It ruled that support for Ivana ceased upon completion of her first degree, rejecting the respondent's claim for medical school expenses.

Support for Jelena was suspended for 2012 due to her employment but continued for 2013 despite part-time studies due to a mental health condition, payable directly to her after age 22 until age 23.

The court clarified the interpretation of section 7 expenses for post-secondary education and hockey, largely upholding the original consent order's framework.

Arrears were calculated based on these findings.

In this case management endorsement, the court addressed several procedural issues between the parties.

The court set a schedule for written submissions to settle the terms of a previous order, established a contingent timetable for pleadings pending an appeal, ordered the return of the plaintiff's devices, and directed further submissions on a document protocol and costs.

This case involved a motion to change a joint custody order for two children (ages 13 and 11) due to severe parental conflict.

The court found a material change in circumstances, concluding that joint custody was no longer appropriate.

Interim sole custody of the elder child (Sierra) was awarded to the mother (Marcia), with specific access for the father (Nelson) and reunification therapy.

Interim sole custody of the younger child (Ethan) was awarded to the father (Nelson), with a week-about access schedule for the mother.

The decision also addressed retroactive and ongoing child support, Section 7 expenses, and dismissed a contempt motion against the mother, while criticizing both parents and the school board for their conduct.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to remain in the home she occupied with the deceased, the respondent sought costs of $40,681.76 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found there was divided success, as the applicant had obtained some relief on consent and in a prior appearance.

Considering the narrow scope of the issue, the respondent's unnecessary landlord and tenant proceeding, and the applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded the respondent reduced costs of $4,000, deferred until after the sale of an estate property.

This trial decision addresses corollary relief following a marital separation, focusing on financial issues including income imputation, child support, section 7 expenses, equalization of net family property, and spousal support.

The court imputed a higher income to one spouse due to non-disclosure and unreliable testimony, leading to orders for retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as a significant equalization payment.

Spousal support obligations were deemed satisfied by a prior judgment.

The court also considered and denied a request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an interlocutory decision where the defendants sought to interpret a previous order, imposing additional and retroactive obligations on the plaintiff and its expert.

The plaintiff successfully resisted the defendants' arguments on most issues.

The court found the defendants' positions unreasonable and unfair, particularly their allegations of misconduct against the plaintiff's counsel and expert, which unnecessarily consumed court and plaintiff's time.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, reducing the claimed amount due to excessive research time and high expert invoice.

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought costs of $75,000.

The court found that the plaintiff had unreasonably pursued a meritless case, provided tailored evidence, and rejected an offer to settle that would have resulted in a dismissal without costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49, the court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

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 parties could not agree on the terms of orders flowing from previous endorsements regarding support arrears, requiring the court to issue a further endorsement.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith by attempting to enforce unascertainable arrears through the Family Responsibility Office despite the court's clear prior rulings.

The court found that the applicant's conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, as she sought to relitigate the issue of arrears without reasonable justification.

Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $5,214.95.

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 plaintiff landlord brought an action for breach of contract after the defendant tenant vacated commercial premises three weeks after moving in and refused to pay rent.

The tenant argued there was no binding lease agreement, only an agreement to agree, or alternatively that the landlord committed a fundamental breach due to zoning issues and incomplete renovations.

The court found that the signed Offer to Lease contained all essential elements and constituted a binding agreement.

The court rejected the fundamental breach arguments, noting the tenant's complaints were inconsistent, mostly resolved, or not the landlord's responsibility under the 'as is' clause.

The landlord was awarded damages for lost rent, less fit-up costs for new tenants, with interest at 12% per annum compounded monthly.

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.