William M. LeMay

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Carter J. dated August 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay the responding party $5,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vella J. dated July 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The moving party brought a fresh evidence application and a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the application and the motion, awarding $5,000 in costs to the responding party.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs following the dismissal of an application for judicial review and related motions brought by a physician and her patients.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants and should pay no costs, or alternatively, reduced costs.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest litigant argument, finding the physician was pursuing private and pecuniary interests in a dispute with her regulator, and the patients lacked standing.

The court ordered the patients to pay $8,000 and the physician to pay $18,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court determined the payout of funds held in court from the sale of a Ferrari seized by a bailiff pursuant to a preservation order.

The bailiff sought $46,016.30 for storage fees.

The applicant argued the vehicles were improperly stored outdoors, causing damage.

The court found the bailiff was entitled to compensation but applied a 20% deduction for the improper storage of the Ferrari, awarding $36,810.88.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $11,468.14 in interest on previously unpaid costs awards and $14,175.85 in substantial indemnity costs for a Rule 60 motion due to reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiff commenced a main action to recover monies from the defendant, a former romantic partner.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced a second action alleging the defendant fraudulently conveyed funds to her counsel.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the second action, arguing it was res judicata, an abuse of process, or should be dismissed because another proceeding was pending.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim was not res judicata as no final order had been made, and it was not an abuse of process.

However, to prevent the risk of double recovery, the court ordered the fraudulent conveyance action stayed pending the outcome of the main action.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit for her own personal use.

The tenant argued the landlord acted in bad faith, the eviction date was unfair, and he was denied procedural fairness when refused an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Board correctly applied the test for good faith, which requires a genuine intention to occupy rather than a reasonable proposal, and the tenant was afforded procedural fairness as he had adequate notice and opportunity to present his case.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellants successfully set aside a finding that a revenue misrepresentation claim was encompassed within the original statement of claim, thereby preserving a Limitations Act defence.

Both parties claimed to be the successful party and sought costs of $20,000.

The court found that success was divided, as the appellants did not get the claim dismissed but did preserve a significant defence.

The court awarded the appellants $10,000 for the appeal and $1,500 for costs submissions, and ordered each party to bear their own costs for the motion below.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to investigate her, impose interim restrictions, and subsequently suspend her medical license for issuing unjustified COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

A group of anonymous patients also sought judicial review, arguing the investigation infringed their privacy and autonomy.

The Divisional Court quashed the patients' application for lack of standing.

The court dismissed the physician's application, finding the challenge to the investigation decision premature and the interim restriction and suspension decisions reasonable given the immediate risk to patient safety.

The court also granted the CPSO's motion for a publication ban to protect the identities of complainants.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision granting the respondent leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add a revenue misrepresentation claim arising from a share purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Associate Judge erred in law by relying on discovery evidence to conclude the amendment was not a new cause of action.

However, the court upheld the Associate Judge's alternative finding that the discoverability of the claim under the Limitations Act involved factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.

The respondent was permitted to amend its claim, but the appellants were granted leave to plead a limitations defence.

The appellant, a real estate agent, appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against two brokerages for unpaid commissions.

The appellant had submitted a conditional offer on behalf of clients that was not accepted by the vendors, and subsequently sued for the cooperating broker's commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that a conditional offer does not create a binding contract and the vendors had no obligation to accept it.

The court also rejected the appellant's claims of bias against the trial judge and upheld the trial costs awards.

On a refusals and undertakings motion in a civil action arising from a fatal impaired driving collision, the plaintiffs sought to compel answers and production from one defendant concerning punitive damages, historical alcohol use, driving history, social media, and incarceration-related records.

The court held that discovery is for ascertaining relevant facts, not adjudicating the viability of a partial summary judgment position, and refused to bar disclosure on the basis that punitive damages might ultimately fail because of the prior criminal sentence.

Broader disclosure was ordered concerning the Miami trip, past driving infractions, social media usernames and trip-related posts, and parole and incarceration records, subject to limits against overbroad and intrusive requests such as Apple ID data.

The defendant was ordered to answer the specified refusals in Appendix “A” and re-attend for further discovery.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside an undefended trial decision and the granting of the Law Society's request to transfer an action, the court determined costs.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that costs could not be awarded without formal motion records.

The court declined to award costs personally against the respondent's counsel to avoid further delay.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the respondent, finding his conduct constituted an abuse of process designed to complicate and delay the proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $3,987.77 for the Law Society and $12,500.00 for the applicant.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing an arbitral award made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).

The appellant argued that the respondent had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court by commencing an action there before pursuing arbitration, and that he had not received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondent unequivocally abandoned the right to arbitrate, and confirming that the record supported the application judge's finding that proper notice was given.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for sentencing after the defendant was found in civil contempt for breaching multiple court orders requiring him to remove defamatory internet postings and cease publishing further defamatory statements.

The defendant engaged in a years-long campaign of vilification and deliberately flouted the court's orders, only purging his contempt shortly before sentencing.

The court found that a fine or conditional sentence would be inadequate given the defendant's history of non-compliance and the need for deterrence.

The defendant was sentenced to four months of incarceration without remission.

In a long-running family and related civil litigation, the court refused to permit the respondent to advance a Rule 59.06 motion alleging fraud in relation to inheritance, business funds, property contributions, and assault allegations.

The court held the proposed motion was abusive relitigation because those issues had already been raised and rejected, the respondent's contempt sentence had barred participation in the undefended trial, and the alleged new evidence was not new and could not satisfy the reopening threshold.

The court also addressed a separate action commenced in Toronto against the Law Society of Ontario arising from the same broader dispute and held that the overlap in facts, witnesses, credibility issues, and risk of inconsistent outcomes justified transfer to Brampton and case management by the same judge.

Costs were left to written submissions if not agreed.

Following a motion regarding undertakings and refusals where the RBC defendants were largely successful, they sought substantial indemnity costs of $10,350 due to the plaintiff's uncooperative conduct and delays.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not reach the required threshold of abusive or reprehensible behaviour.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $7,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the plaintiff.

In an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from fraud charges, the RBC defendants sought an order requiring the plaintiff's estate trustee to reattend personally to answer questions previously refused on discovery.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants improperly contacted the court and that written answers would suffice.

The court found the defendants' communication was proper and ordered the estate trustee to reattend at his own expense, as follow-up questions would be necessary and a personal attendance would be more efficient than written answers.