William M. LeMay

This decision concerns the trial of Tamaal Japp and Moses Tesfay for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Uchenna Achioso.

The court reviews the evidence, including agreed statements of fact, expert testimony, and the credibility of key witnesses.

The main issues are the identity of the accused and the extent of their criminal liability.

The court finds both accused guilty of manslaughter, not murder, concluding that while they participated in an unlawful act leading to death, the evidence does not establish the intent or planning required for murder.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they engaged in a course of conduct that perpetrated a fraud on investors by raising funds for a specific real estate project and diverting them for other purposes.

The Tribunal ordered administrative fines, disgorgement, costs, and permanent market bans with a limited carve-out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the Tribunal's liability findings or sanctions.

The court sentenced A.K. following a jury conviction for four weapons-related offences under the Criminal Code, including possession of a 3D-printed handgun, silencer, extended magazines, and ammunition.

The court reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors, including the arsenal's seriousness, the offender's youth and difficult background, and the absence of public use of the weapon.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, finding a custodial sentence necessary but imposed a total of 30 months' incarceration, reduced for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused, C.N., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old complainant, V.V. The trial turned on the credibility of the child witnesses and the accused.

The court reviewed the evidence, including video surveillance, police interviews, and testimony, and applied the legal framework for assessing credibility and adverse inferences.

The judge found the accused's evidence not credible, accepted the core of the complainants' evidence, and convicted C.N. on both counts.

The appellants, ten tenants of a mobile home park, appealed three Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions allowing the landlord's application to evict them to convert the property to non-residential use.

The tenants argued the LTB erred in law regarding the sufficiency of the N13 notices, the test for good faith, and the consideration of relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law, holding that the notices provided sufficient detail, the LTB correctly assessed the landlord's good faith intention to convert the land use, and the LTB adequately considered the tenants' circumstances before granting the eviction with a delayed enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants for leave to late-serve an expert report on the standard of care in a real estate negligence action.

The report was served after the pre-trial conference, and the Third Parties opposed its admission.

The court applied the test under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay, whether prejudice would result, and whether the trial would be unduly delayed.

The court found the explanation of solicitor’s inadvertence to be at the low end of reasonable, but accepted it.

The court concluded that any prejudice could be managed by costs or adjournment, and that the trial would not be unduly delayed.

Leave was granted to admit the report, subject to strict terms to protect the Third Parties.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting time, decision-making authority, and financial issues following the separation of S.M. (applicant) and N.E. (respondent).

The court reviews the respondent's repeated non-compliance with court orders, her failure to participate in proceedings, and the resulting orders for an undefended trial on financial issues.

The court ultimately denies the respondent's motion to set aside the undefended trial, grants the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child, and sets out detailed orders regarding child support, the matrimonial home, and costs.

The decision addresses a motion by A.C. to enforce a prior order regarding parenting time and family systems therapy for the parties' child, D.C., following a history of domestic violence and high-conflict litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, K.C., has failed to comply with orders regarding both parenting time and therapy, and has unilaterally enrolled D.C. in individual counselling contrary to the court's direction for family systems therapy.

The court orders the resumption of parenting time, directs the parties to engage in family systems therapy, and retains jurisdiction to supervise compliance.

The plaintiff, a party under disability, sued his former lawyers for professional negligence regarding the handling of his accident benefits claim.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's current law firm as counsel of record, arguing a conflict of interest because a lawyer from that firm had sworn an affidavit approving a prior settlement and would likely be a key witness.

The motions judge dismissed the removal motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the decision and ordered the firm removed, finding the motions judge erred by failing to properly consider the scope of the conflict, the plaintiff's status as a party under disability, and the likelihood that the lawyer would be called as a witness.

The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses two issues in the context of a long-running guardianship and estate dispute: (1) the standing of Indu and Meenu Shewa to participate in the passing of accounts of Sundri Shewa’s property, and (2) the disclosure of medical information regarding Sundri Shewa’s capacity.

The court grants standing to Indu and Meenu, finding their rights and interests may be directly affected by the outcome, and sets out a careful process for the disclosure of sensitive medical records, balancing the need for evidence with privacy concerns.

The court dismissed MC Mines Inc.'s motion to set aside service and stay a third-party claim brought by Best International Cargo Inc. in Ontario.

The dispute arose from damage to mining equipment during transport from Quebec to Montreal, with MC Mines arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Quebec was the more appropriate forum.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the main contract was formed there, and held that the action should proceed in Ontario to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant law firm sought a charging order against its former client, Christine Roberts, and her accident benefits insurer, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, for legal fees and disbursements incurred in pursuing accident benefits and a potential tort claim.

The court found that the statutory and common law criteria for a charging order or lien were not met, as there was no property recovered or preserved through the solicitor’s efforts.

The court also noted that any assignment of SABS benefits would be void by statute.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

This decision fixes costs following a motion in long-running litigation involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to RBC and its counsel, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity and the applicant’s claim for costs.

The reasons review the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ultimately awarding $16,500 in costs to be paid by Mr. Mylabathula to RBC.

The appellant appealed multiple decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying her Income Replacement Benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as decisions denying an extension of time and a reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory extension and reconsideration decisions.

Regarding the merits, the court held that the LAT's procedural choice to proceed in writing was fair and that the appellant's substantive arguments raised questions of fact, not extricable errors of law.

The court addressed two motions: one to remove counsel for the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula due to a conflict of interest and the likelihood of becoming a witness, and another to strike the counterclaim brought by the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula against RBC and its counsel, Mr. Bowden.

The court ordered the removal of counsel, Mr. Callahan, finding he would inevitably be a witness regarding Mr. Mylabathula's knowledge of costs orders.

The counterclaim by the Estate was struck without leave to amend due to limitations and the inability of an estate to pursue defamation claims.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against Mr. Bowden was struck without leave due to absolute privilege and abuse of process.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against RBC was struck with limited leave to amend, requiring proper pleading of tort elements and a connection for discrimination claims.

This decision addresses ongoing procedural disputes in a long-standing action, primarily concerning discovery obligations, tracing orders, and a motion for leave to strike a statement of defence.

The court ordered the defendants to provide further clarification and information, including affidavits, regarding specific written questions and the tracing of funds from second and third mortgages.

However, the plaintiffs' requests for a tracing order concerning the property's sale proceeds and leave to bring a motion to strike the statement of defence were denied.

The court emphasized the need to move the matter towards mediation and trial, noting that discovery was largely complete.

The Plaintiffs, Hassan Siddiqui and Sara Al-Ahmar, sought summary judgment against real estate agents and their agencies (Gyanesh Paliwal, Re-Max Realty Specialists Inc., Sanjay Bhayana, and World Class Realty Point) to recover commissions and a premium paid in an assignment of a pre-construction home purchase.

The underlying purchase agreement was not completed by the builder, who returned the deposit but not the premium or commissions.

The Plaintiffs had previously settled with the original assignor, Haarikka Sivanarayan.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims, finding no contractual basis for recovery from the real estate agents as the Plaintiffs did not directly pay the commissions, and the assignor was responsible for them.

Furthermore, the court found no unjust enrichment as there was no direct deprivation of the Plaintiffs corresponding to the agents' enrichment.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a trial where the plaintiff's $2.5 million claim was largely dismissed, with only $15,000 awarded under warranty.

The defendant was deemed the successful party for costs.

The court addressed the parties' conduct regarding document organization and hyperlinking during the virtual trial, which significantly lengthened proceedings.

Despite the defendant's success, their costs award was substantially reduced due to joint failures in trial preparation and adherence to practice directions.

The court fixed the costs of the defendants' unsuccessful motion for further particulars.

The plaintiffs, as the successful party, sought full indemnity costs, while the defendants argued for no costs or limited partial indemnity.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the motion's dismissal was due to "evolving Rules reforms" justifying no costs.

It also rejected the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, considering the moderate complexity and the defendants' unnecessary pursuit of the motion, fixing the amount at $4,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.