William M. LeMay

The accused, D.C., was charged with sexual interference of his step-daughter.

The trial involved preliminary motions regarding the admissibility of statements and a "demand letter." The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding key incidents and the "demand letter" as well as discrepancies in her explanation for delayed disclosure.

Despite finding the complainant generally credible, the court concluded that the inconsistencies raised a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The plaintiff company, RAH Transport Inc., controlled by Richard A. Hudson, entered into contracts with Pride Truck Sales Ltd. to purchase two trucks, financed by TPine Leasing Capital Corporation.

Hudson provided personal guarantees for the leases.

The plaintiffs sought rescission of the contracts and damages, alleging breaches by the defendants, including claims of fraudulent documents and vehicle deficiencies.

The defendants, particularly TPine, counterclaimed for losses incurred from the repossession and sale of the trucks after the plaintiffs ceased making lease payments.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, finding no fundamental breach of contract or grounds for rescission.

The court allowed TPine's counterclaim, holding RAH Transport Inc. and Richard Anthony Hudson jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from their breach of the lease agreements.

The Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar, through its trustee, brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself from hearing a privilege motion and a motion to pass accounts.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought disclosure of the Estate Trustee's real estate lawyer's file and an order for the Estate to pass its accounts.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It granted RBC's motion, ruling that the Estate Trustee had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege over the real estate file by relying on legal advice to explain his conduct regarding the property transfer.

The court also found that RBC, as a judgment creditor, had standing under the Estates Act to compel the passing of the Estate's accounts, and ordered the accounts to be passed.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues in the administration of a deceased's estate, which has been ongoing since 2011.

The court convened a hearing to finalize the estate winding-up and payment of funds.

The primary issues addressed were the respondent's attempts to re-litigate previously decided matters concerning the sale of the estate's property and the identification of creditors, alleged errors in tax returns, and directions for payments to the accountant and Canada Revenue Agency.

The court dismissed the respondent's attempts to re-open issues regarding the property title and creditors, deeming them an abuse of process, and rejected claims of tax return deficiencies.

The court ordered immediate payments to the accounting firm for tax preparation and to the Canada Revenue Agency for taxes owing.

It also confirmed final adjustments to the estate accounts and set a timetable for costs submissions for various case management hearings.

The court held a case management conference to address multiple ongoing and acrimonious actions between the parties following a Court of Appeal decision that found the respondent's appeal of an undefended trial decision to be an abuse of process.

The court provided directions and timetables for determining the scope of the remaining 'seminal' action, deferred a related action for recovery of funds, and ordered the dismissal of an action regarding a false criminal complaint.

The court also addressed the status of various other related actions, including claims against former counsel, and set schedules for future case management conferences and motion hearings.

The Crown sought an order for the complainant in a criminal trial (assault and sexual assault charges) to testify remotely from her home via Zoom, citing fear of the accused, medical conditions, and childcare issues.

The defence opposed, arguing the application fell under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code, requiring exceptional circumstances, rather than s. 486.2.

The court determined s. 714.1 applied, requiring exceptional circumstances, especially given credibility was a key issue.

The court found the complainant's circumstances, including medical conditions and childcare, did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances, particularly considering prior in-person interactions with the accused and the uncontrolled nature of home testimony.

The Crown's motion was dismissed, requiring the complainant to testify in person.

The parties, who had cohabited but were never married, resolved their issues in a 2020 settlement conference, with the presiding judge retaining jurisdiction over the interpretation, application, or implementation of the minutes of settlement.

Ongoing disputes arose concerning a cemetery plot, the reinstatement of the applicant on the respondent's benefits plan, and the account into which spousal support payments were being made.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a May 2021 order, arguing that her failure to participate was due to inadvertence.

The court found that the test for setting aside the order was met, including a plausible explanation for the respondent's default.

The court clarified the cemetery plot issue, ordered further steps to involve the benefits insurer (OTIP and Manulife) for the reinstatement issue, and ruled that the respondent was not liable for support payments deposited into the applicant's garnished RBC account, except for one payment made after a specific court order.

The court deferred the costs award from the May 2021 hearing to the conclusion of the process.

This costs endorsement addresses the failure of the Respondent, Stewart Wilson, to pay outstanding costs awards to the Applicant, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari.

The court clarified the specific amounts owing from previous orders, including interest, and directed Mr. Wilson to pay a total of $80,377.22.

The court also ruled that payments should be made to the Applicant's counsel in trust, rather than directly to the Applicant, due to the contentious nature of the case.

The court declined to enforce costs awards from the Court of Appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

No costs were awarded for the submissions themselves due to both parties' non-compliance with court directions.

Following a successful appeal that reversed a Small Claims Court decision for lack of monetary jurisdiction, the appellants sought costs of $19,016.45.

The respondent argued the amount was excessive.

The Divisional Court found the issues were of moderate complexity and fixed the appellants' costs at $5,000 inclusive for both the appeal and the Small Claims Court proceeding, noting the amount claimed in the underlying action was less than $70,000.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $12,500 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion to set aside a default judgment.

The defendant argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000, citing divided success due to a nunc pro tunc order granted in its favour.

The court found the defendant's aggressive and untenable approach to maintaining the default judgment warranted a costs award to the plaintiffs.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to take no further action against a physician.

The complaint alleged the physician engaged in gender discrimination and directed improper use of involuntary psychiatric detention and driver's license review forms to increase profitability.

The Divisional Court found the ICRC's investigation was inadequate because it failed to interview any of the direct witnesses identified by the applicant.

The court quashed the HPARB and ICRC decisions and remitted the matter to the ICRC for a new investigation.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 for unpaid trailer fees under an agency agreement.

The respondent had sued for only three of seven outstanding invoices to stay within the Small Claims Court's monetary jurisdiction, intending to bring a second action for the remainder.

The Divisional Court held that the right to trailer fees flowed from a single contract, meaning the separate invoices did not constitute separate causes of action.

By splitting the claim to fit within the monetary limit without waiving the excess, the respondent engaged in impermissible cause of action splitting.

The Divisional Court quashed the Small Claims Court decision as a nullity for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the matter to proceed as a Simplified Rules action in the Superior Court of Justice.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding real estate commissions, the successful respondent, Right at Home Realty Inc., sought costs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, opposed the costs and attempted to re-litigate the merits of the appeal, including making unfounded claims of bias.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $5,027.00, finding the amount reasonable given the complexity introduced by the appellant's arguments and noting that her conduct did not cross the threshold into abusive or reprehensible behaviour to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

This decision addresses the costs of a prior proceeding concerning bailiff fees.

The Applicant sought costs, arguing success in obtaining a rebate on storage costs.

The court found the Applicant had limited success, having been obligated to pay the bulk of the claimed fees, and that overall success was divided.

The Respondent did not seek costs and was deemed not to owe or be entitled to costs.

The Bailiff also did not seek costs.

Consequently, the court awarded no costs for this portion of the proceeding, and the Applicant was precluded from claiming these costs at any other stage.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) appealed a Superior Court decision staying its application under section 87 of the Health Professions Procedural Code to compel a physician to produce patient records.

The physician had refused to produce records related to COVID-19 vaccine exemptions and had separately sought judicial review of the CPSO's investigation.

The Divisional Court held that although the appeal might be moot following the dismissal of the judicial review, it should be heard for reasons of judicial economy.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the stay, finding the applications judge erred in principle by misapprehending the narrow scope of a section 87 application and failing to consider the urgency and public interest in the investigation.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Plaintiff successfully sought to stay a related fraudulent conveyance action.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the Defendant's position was weak and that a reasonable offer to settle was made.

The Defendant sought to defer costs or have them dismissed.

The court declined to defer costs, finding the Plaintiff successful on the motion.

It awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,000.00 to the Plaintiff, determining that while the Plaintiff's offer was reasonable, it did not trigger Rule 49 consequences, and the Defendant's conduct, though based on a tenuous argument, was not abusive or egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity.

The appellant real estate broker appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision suspending his registration for three months.

The suspension was based on false statements in registration applications and workplace misconduct.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the notice of proposal did not include the workplace misconduct allegations.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the LAT improperly relied on unparticularized evidence of workplace misconduct to support its finding that the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for improper seizure of leased vehicles.

The defendant filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, adding the plaintiff's principal as a defendant by counterclaim, but failed to have it issued by the court.

The defendant obtained default judgment on the unissued counterclaim.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the default judgment, and the defendant cross-moved for a nunc pro tunc order deeming the counterclaim issued before the limitation period expired.

The court set aside the default judgment because the counterclaim was never issued.

The court granted the nunc pro tunc order, finding the defendant was ready to issue the claim within the limitation period and the plaintiff suffered no prejudice.

The applicant, a telecommunications contractor, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that refused to change its business classification from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, or alternatively, to reclassify it from Rate Group 704 to Rate Group 983.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the WSIAT's conclusions were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.