William M. LeMay

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a costs order and a subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $15,000 to the responding parties.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding an outstanding credit card debt.

He argued that the respondent improperly obtained an order extending the time for service and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was issued within the limitation period and that the order extending time for service was an unappealable interlocutory order.

The court also noted the appellant's failure to attend the peremptory hearing and awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring them to pay outstanding legal fees to the respondent law firm.

The appellants argued that the motions judge failed to properly scrutinize the solicitor's accounts, applied the wrong test for summary judgment, and should have directed a reference for an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the summary judgment test, properly reviewed the accounts, and reasonably exercised his discretion not to order a reference given the appellants' failure to comply with the Solicitors Act timelines.

The applicant sought to expand his parenting time with the two children of the marriage.

The respondent opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and raising concerns about the applicant's alleged substance abuse.

The court found several compelling material changes, including the children becoming school-aged, an incident exposing children to adult conflict, and the applicant's changed work schedule.

The court granted an expansion of parenting time, implementing a graduated schedule leading to overnight visits, and ordered the applicant to undergo drug and alcohol testing.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after being largely successful at trial on issues of child support, equalization, and decision-making authority.

The Respondent failed to provide proper costs submissions, instead filing "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) materials and challenging the court's jurisdiction.

The court found the Applicant was more successful than her offer to settle and that the Respondent's conduct, including disclosure failures and the advancement of OPCA arguments, warranted substantial recovery costs.

The court awarded $25,000 in costs to the Applicant and addressed concerns about the child's schooling due to the Respondent's OPCA stance.

The Respondent brought a motion to vary an interim order for supervised parenting time, seeking unsupervised access to the child.

The Applicant opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the history, including the Respondent's prior absconding with the child and ongoing conflictual behavior during supervised visits, and the Applicant's hypervigilance.

The court declined to vary the supervised access order, finding it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability and avoid parental conflict.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to assist in determining the child's best interests and managing parental conflict.

The applicant challenged the City of Mississauga's Nuisance Weed and Tall Grass Control By-law, arguing it was ultra vires and unconstitutional as an infringement of his right to free expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the by-law did infringe on freedom of expression, it was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The by-law's objectives of public safety, health, and aesthetics were pressing and substantial, and its restrictions were minimally impairing and proportionate.

The court also rejected claims of improper by-law enforcement, lack of qualified inspectors, and insufficient appeal processes.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash O. Reg. 382/19, which amended transitional rules for planning appeals before the Ontario Land Tribunal, arguing it was ultra vires its enabling statute.

The regulation reimposed a more restrictive procedural regime on third-party appeals of municipal planning decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Attorney General had broad, express statutory authority under s. 43.1 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 to make the transitional regulation.

The court held the regulation was consistent with the enabling statute and did not improperly deprive the applicants of vested substantive rights.

The court also declined to address procedural fairness issues, finding them premature as they should be raised in the applicants' pending motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant builder appealed an arbitrator's final award on damages and costs following a failed real estate transaction.

Previously, a Superior Court judge had set aside the arbitrator's initial liability award, finding the respondent buyers liable for anticipatory breach, and remitted the matter for damages assessment.

On remand, the arbitrator ignored the court's binding findings, created a legal fiction of 'contributory breach of contract,' and limited the builder's damages to the forfeited deposits without hearing evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that arbitrators are bound by the law and appellate court directions.

The award was set aside and remitted to a new arbitrator to properly assess damages based on the difference between the contract and resale prices.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal breached procedural fairness in three ways: relying on the untested evidence of the respondent's expert who did not re-attend for cross-examination, deciding the issue of causation without notice when it was not in dispute, and relying on documents not in evidence that the appellant had no opportunity to address.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The appellant franchisee appealed a motion judge's decision denying an interlocutory injunction to prevent the termination of its franchise agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's two-paragraph reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to address the renewal clause, the factual disputes, or the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Court declined to decide the injunction on the merits, remitting it to a different judge.

The Court also held that the franchisor's undertaking not to terminate the agreement pending the determination of the injunction motion remained binding through the appeal process.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing on the basis of illness and a recent change in counsel.

The respondent initially opposed the adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but directed that the appeal proceed in writing, with a timetable for further submissions.

The court also refused to permit the appellants to file new evidentiary material, noting a lack of diligence in pursuing its admission.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a trial where the plaintiffs were largely successful in their claims regarding property deficiencies against the defendants.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, which did not trigger Rule 49, and applied the principles of Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Factors such as the plaintiffs' greater success, the relative straightforwardness of the proceeding, and the parties' conduct in shortening the trial were weighed.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim for costs reasonable, with a modest reduction due to their partial success, and ordered the defendants to pay $20,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Applicant sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent brought claims for equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress against the Applicant and his family.

The court dismissed all of the Respondent's claims except for an equalization payment of $6,534.50, finding her evidence largely incredible and unreliable.

The court also dismissed the Applicant's request for an unequal division of family property.

The parties separated in 2019 and have five children.

At trial, the issues were equalization, child support, decision-making authority for the youngest child, and post-separation adjustments.

The court awarded the applicant sole decision-making authority for the youngest child, finding the respondent had prioritized his own disputes with the school principal over the child's education, resulting in the child missing 25 days of school.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $67,739 in child support arrears and $2,106 per month in ongoing support, dismissing most of his claims for post-separation adjustments due to lack of disclosure and legal basis.

An equalization payment of $31,817.18 was agreed upon and ordered to be paid from the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration award against the self-represented respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment to obtain counsel, which the court denied due to significant prior delays and the straightforward nature of the enforcement application.

Finding no pending appeal and that the appeal period had expired, the court ordered the enforcement of the arbitration award pursuant to section 50 of the Arbitration Act.

The plaintiffs purchased a home from the defendants and subsequently discovered several deficiencies, including a missing retaining wall for a newly built shop driveway and significant water leakage in the basement.

The plaintiffs sought damages for these deficiencies and punitive damages.

The court found the defendants liable for the costs of constructing the retaining wall, applying the doctrine of rectification or contract interpretation, and for the basement water damage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Other claims for deficiencies and punitive damages were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a Health, Safety and Training Manager, was terminated for cause by her employer after 13 years of service.

The termination stemmed from her handling of her own workplace safety and insurance claim, including delayed reporting, inconsistencies, and a conflict of interest.

The court found the employee's conduct, including dishonesty and suborning a lower-level employee, constituted just cause for dismissal.

The employee's claim for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages was dismissed.

The employer's counterclaim for an unpaid loan was also dismissed, as the loan was held by a separate numbered company, not the employer.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to enforce a settlement regarding farm properties, the respondent and third party sought their costs.

The applicant argued that success was divided and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful as he obtained the order enforcing the settlement.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the respondent and $2,500 to the third party.

The appellant homeowner appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent contractor $20,046 for home renovations.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in fact-finding, contract interpretation, applying the Consumer Protection Act, and violated natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had reached an oral agreement on the amount owing.

The court also upheld the finding that the appellant could not rely on the Consumer Protection Act to void the contract, as she had specifically requested an oral agreement to avoid paying HST.

Claims of bias and inadequate reasons were also dismissed.