William M. LeMay

The defendants brought a motion for particulars seeking additional details regarding the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent payments, oppression, and piercing the corporate veil.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim provided sufficient material facts to allow the defendants to plead.

The judge emphasized that many requested particulars were either already provided, within the defendants' own knowledge (e.g., corporate records), or could be obtained through the discovery process.

The court also expressed concern that the motion for particulars was being used as a delay tactic, contrary to the goals of civil procedure reform.

This endorsement fixes costs for a prior motion where the Respondent successfully obtained an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing she made an equivalent to a Rule 49 offer.

The Applicant sought partial costs or that each party bear their own costs.

The court found the Respondent was the successful party but did not meet or better her offer to settle.

Consequently, costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent $4,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable from his share of the matrimonial home proceeds upon sale.

This decision addresses the determination of costs following an omnibus judgment in a protracted family and civil litigation spanning ten years.

The court fixed costs for three main issues: a dispute with a bailiff, claims between the Applicant and the Respondent/his mother, and an action against Abrahams LLP.

The court applied both Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure principles, emphasizing that successful parties are entitled to costs and that egregious or reprehensible conduct warrants full or substantial indemnity.

The Respondent and his mother were found to have engaged in abusive litigation conduct, leading to significant cost awards against them, while the Applicant was ordered to pay the bailiff's costs for an improper motion.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their motion to set aside an undefended trial judgment regarding a basement renovation contract.

The appellants argued the motions judge erred in calculating the delay, applied the wrong legal test, ignored evidence of fraud, was biased, and improperly awarded costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied Rule 17.04 of the Small Claims Court Rules, properly exercised her discretion, and exhibited no reasonable apprehension of bias.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an eight-day trial in a family law matter consolidated with a civil action.

The Applicant (Hardeep Singh Nijher) sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent (Manpreet Dhaliwal) sought spousal support, equalization, and damages.

The trial decision granted the Respondent a small equalization payment but dismissed all other claims.

The Applicant and Defendants (Applicant's family and a friend) sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the Respondent engaged in bad faith conduct by making false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, and by initiating a multiplicity of proceedings.

While full indemnity costs were deemed appropriate due to bad faith, the court reduced the total quantum awarded to account for the duplication of counsel for the Applicant and Defendants, and the prior resolution of a separate jewelry claim.

This decision addresses outstanding issues following a contentious family law trial, specifically concerning child support calculation, parenting orders, and costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's attempt to re-litigate the child support offset calculation and section 7 expenses, finding no arithmetical errors and no new evidence.

It clarified parenting orders, incorporating some of the parties' agreed-upon terms and making mutual orders for activity attendance.

On costs, the court found the applicant was more successful on the critical issues of material change and sole decision-making authority, despite her offer to settle not meeting the Rule 18 criteria for substantial indemnity.

Considering the divided success and the unreasonable conduct of both parties, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $40,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within twelve months.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application by Peel Condominium Corporation No. 170 to enforce an arbitration award against Bonita Lynne Mittel.

The initial application was granted on February 8, 2024.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,992.76, arguing that condominium litigation warrants higher cost awards under Section 134(5) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Respondent opposed, citing inability to pay and claiming she did not oppose the enforcement application.

The court found that the Respondent did oppose the application and caused delays, and that her financial circumstances did not justify deviating from the statutory policy of shifting costs to the unit owner.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the Applicant, emphasizing the unique nature of costs in condominium disputes.

The respondent brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, an 83-year-old in ill health requiring home dialysis, opposed the sale, arguing it would jeopardize his health and that financial disclosure and equalization issues were unresolved.

The court granted the order for sale, finding no evidence that the applicant's dialysis required him to remain in the specific home and that financial issues were quantifiable and could be managed with hold-backs.

The court ordered the sale to proceed with the applicant remaining in the home until closing, allowing sufficient time for new accommodations.

This decision provides case management directions in a complex, multi-action family law matter.

The court addressed the status of an appeal and enforcement of previous judgments regarding equalization and spousal support, noting that payments had been made.

It granted counsel's motion to get off the record and set a timetable for future motions concerning a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), leave to bring tort actions (abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering), and spousal support arrears.

The court emphasized that previously decided matters, including equalization, were final and not open for re-argument.

Strict communication protocols with the court were reiterated, with a warning against contempt.

This motion arose from the separation of the Applicant father and Respondent mother.

The Respondent had de facto possession of the matrimonial home due to criminal charges against the Applicant.

The Respondent sought sole possession of the home, child support, and parenting time.

The Applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, and parenting time.

The court addressed parenting time (mostly by consent), imputed income to both parties, ordered interim child support from the Applicant, and ordered a $5,000 undifferentiated payment from the Applicant to the Respondent.

The court granted the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the balance of convenience favored him despite domestic violence allegations.

No interim spousal support was ordered due to the short marriage and other factors.

The court also issued directions for ongoing disclosure and a timetable for the litigation.

This is a costs decision following a motion to vary supervised access.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing complete success and bad faith by the Respondent.

The Respondent argued mixed success and unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant was not entirely successful, rejected the bad faith claim, and deemed the motion straightforward.

It also noted both parties' problematic conduct.

The court awarded the Applicant significantly reduced costs, considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the parties' conduct.

The Plaintiff condominium corporation sued the Defendant window manufacturer for breach of warranty, contract, and negligence regarding defective windows and condensation issues.

The court found that most problems were due to building construction, humidity, or installation errors, which were excluded by the warranty.

However, the court found the Defendant liable for manufacturing defects in approximately 10 Insulated Glass Units (IGUs) that failed due to water leaks unrelated to condensation.

The Plaintiff's claims for general damages and full replacement costs were dismissed, with limited damages awarded for the specific IGU failures under warranty.

The parties have been embroiled in complex family and civil litigation since their separation in 2014.

Following a final judgment in the family law proceeding awarding the applicant over $1.5 million, the court addressed several outstanding issues through case management.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion under Rule 59.06 to reconsider a previous order regarding bailiff fees.

Applying the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process, the court dismissed the respondent's remaining civil claims against the applicant and her former counsel.

The court also found that the respondent's mother, who had purchased some of the respondent's actions from his trustee in bankruptcy and held legal title to a property beneficially owned by the respondent, was bound by the court's previous factual findings and dismissed her claims.

The court ordered that if the respondent failed to pay the judgment within 45 days, the property would be seized and sold.

Finally, the court held it had jurisdiction under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to enforce outstanding costs orders made by the Court of Appeal.

The applicants, seven private practice oral and maxillofacial surgeons, applied for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their access to operating rooms.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision was a decision to 'cease a service' under s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which expressly displaces the common law right to notice or a hearing.

The hospital had cancelled the legacy program to comply with its funding obligations under a Hospital Service Accountability Agreement.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking expanded parenting time and a reduction in child support.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole decision-making authority and reduced parenting time for the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's inability to prioritize the child's best interests, particularly regarding medical issues and extracurricular activities, and the significant deterioration in the parties' ability to co-parent.

The court awarded sole decision-making authority to the mother and reduced the father's parenting time.

The court also imputed the father's income at $100,000 for child support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered proportional sharing of section 7 expenses for summer camps, while excluding gymnastics and language school going forward.

The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that the insured's election of benefits under s. 31(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule was invalid due to the insurer's non-compliance with s. 32(2)(b).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's factual findings regarding the insurer's non-compliance were not reviewable on a question of law.

The Court agreed that because the initial election was invalid, the insured had not made an election within the meaning of the SABS, and therefore the general prohibition against changing an election did not apply.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of McGee J. dated March 6, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $4,200 payable to the responding party within thirty days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave and directed the parties to schedule a case management teleconference to establish a schedule and fix the questions for review.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the review panel.