William M. LeMay

The parties brought cross-motions regarding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery in an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from a failed business loan application and subsequent fraud charges.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding the estate trustee's previous business dealings, prior fraud conviction, and the factual basis for the malicious prosecution claim.

The court also ordered the defendants to answer specific questions regarding the information provided to the RCMP, while upholding refusals for questions that were argumentative, irrelevant, or already answered.

The defendants were largely successful on the motion.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiffs' action, the defendant TD sought partial indemnity costs of $231,077.50.

The plaintiffs argued for a reduction based on the principal plaintiff's impecuniosity, the novelty of the case, and excessive time claimed.

The court found that while the plaintiff's financial circumstances warranted some moderation, the novelty of the case did not justify a reduction as basic negligence principles applied.

The court also found some of TD's claimed time excessive, but noted the plaintiffs' conduct caused significant delay.

The court awarded TD costs of $130,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's actions and strike his pleadings due to his failure to pay over $150,000 in outstanding costs awards and a $10,000 fine.

The respondent argued he should not have to pay the applicant directly due to alleged fraud and claimed impecuniosity.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding no evidence of impecuniosity and holding that allegations of fraud do not excuse non-compliance with court orders.

The court gave the respondent a final 14-day period to pay the outstanding costs and fine, failing which his pleadings in all related actions would be struck.

This was a costs-only family law decision arising from prolonged delay and deficient materials in obtaining an uncontested divorce after the parties had already settled their divorce action.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that the responding party's conduct had turned a simple divorce into unnecessary motion litigation, justifying a substantial costs award to the moving party.

The court also considered whether counsel should bear costs personally under the Young and Galganov framework, but declined to do so despite serious concern with counsel's conduct.

Costs of $2,750 all-inclusive were ordered payable by the responding party within 30 days.

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and claimed complex injuries including a traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff served three expert reports and agreed to attend three corresponding defence medical examinations.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a fourth examination with a neurologist.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had been treated by multiple neurologists who might be called as participant experts at trial to offer opinions on causation.

To ensure trial fairness and level the playing field, the defendant was entitled to a responding neurological examination.

Following an urgent motion where the applicant was granted primary residency of the child, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $30,000, while the respondent argued she should recover 50% of her own costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct in abruptly enforcing a stale order and making unsupported allegations.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court ordered the respondent to pay $25,000 in costs to the applicant, deductible from ongoing support payments if unpaid.

The plaintiff, the deceased's son, brought a motion for directions seeking disclosure of the deceased's complete will.

The defendant, the deceased's second wife, opposed production on the basis that the will would not be probated as all assets passed by joint right of survivorship.

The court ordered production of the will pursuant to section 9 of the Estates Act, finding that the plaintiff was mentioned in the will, had a potential interest in the estate, and was entitled to satisfy himself as to its contents.

Costs were reserved.

The plaintiff was severely assaulted by another customer in the vestibule of a TD Bank ATM late at night.

The plaintiff sued TD Bank for negligence and breach of the Occupier's Liability Act, alleging inadequate security measures.

TD brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

After conducting a voir dire to determine the admissibility of five expert reports, the court found that the assault was a random, unforeseeable event and that TD's security measures were reasonable for a low-risk branch.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action against TD.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rules 24 and 48 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action, involving a shareholder dispute, was commenced in 2015.

The defendant was noted in default in 2017, and a default judgment was issued in 2018, which was later set aside in 2019.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was largely attributable to the period when the defendant was in default and the suspension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found no intentional or contumelious delay by the plaintiff and no prejudice to the defendant.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to set aside an order for an undefended trial and to prevent the applicant from moving to Cambridge with the children.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking permission to move.

The court found that the applicant had not provided proper notice of the relocation under the new provisions of the Divorce Act, and there was insufficient evidence to determine if the move was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the request to move for now, deferring the issue to the upcoming trial.

The court also refused to set aside the undefended trial order but allowed the respondent to participate if he files a complete Form 15B Answer.

In an action for fraud and breach of contract arising from a relationship between the plaintiff and a former escort, the parties brought motions to resolve various discovery disputes.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce notes used as an aide memoire during his examination for discovery.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to disclose documents relating to his separation agreement, finding that he had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind regarding the transfer of funds in issue.

The defendant's request to examine the plaintiff's wife as a non-party witness was dismissed as unnecessary for the pending motion.

The plaintiff's action against the Peel Police was dismissed after a 27-day trial.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $434,377.49.

The court found that a police officer had fabricated evidence against the plaintiff, which constituted conduct bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the costs award to the defendant.

However, because the self-represented plaintiff unnecessarily lengthened the trial by raising irrelevant issues, the court awarded the defendant a modest costs sum of $50,000.

The appellants, four individuals who purchased a property, appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay $24,478.63 in real estate commissions to the respondent real estate agent and brokerage.

The appellants argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding an enforceable oral agreement and in applying the principles of unjust enrichment, as no Buyer Representation Agreement was signed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's factual inferences that the appellants deliberately cut the respondents out of the transaction to save on commission, thereby unjustly enriching themselves.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay $24,478.63 in real estate commissions to the respondents.

The appellants argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding an enforceable oral agreement and in applying the principles of unjust enrichment after they purchased a property using the seller's agent instead of the respondents.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's factual inferences or application of the law of unjust enrichment.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an intimate relationship involving sex trade activity, drug use, assault allegations, and probation breaches, the court applied the W.D. framework to assess conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused.

The court rejected the defence request for a Vetrovec caution and held that no similar fact application was required because the assault evidence formed part of the alleged pattern of control, direction or influence relevant to the prostitution-related counts.

The accused was acquitted of sexual assault, exploitation, and procuring, but convicted of receiving a material benefit from sexual services, one assault limited to the hallway incident on February 4, 2018, and three breach of probation counts based on guilty pleas.

The court held that the parties were not in a legitimate living arrangement under s. 286.2(4)(a), characterizing the relationship as parasitic for purposes of the material benefit offence.

The case management judge issued directions regarding multiple related actions.

The court ordered the sale of two vehicles held by a bailiff, with proceeds to be paid into court.

The court also set a timetable for a motion under Rule 60.12 to determine whether the respondent should be permitted to continue participating in the proceedings due to his failure to pay previous costs awards.

Other requests for relief by the respondent were deferred pending the outcome of the Rule 60.12 motion.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement allegedly reached with the plaintiff regarding a claim arising from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The plaintiff argued that his former counsel did not have the authority to settle the matter and that no binding agreement was reached.

The court reviewed the email correspondence between counsel and found that a binding settlement had been reached on November 30, 2016.

The court enforced the settlement, dismissing the claim against the defendant without costs and requiring the plaintiff to sign a release.

In a case-managed family and related civil litigation matter, the court held that an earlier finding that the marriage contract was of no force or effect remained binding across the litigation.

The court found the contract issue had been raised in the family pleadings, was integral to earlier preservation-order and contempt-related rulings, and could not be relitigated in the parallel civil proceedings.

Applying abuse of process principles, the court emphasized finality, consistency, and the integrity of the adjudicative process.

The court directed that the remaining disputes proceed by case conference, rejected urgency, and reserved costs on the contract submissions.

The applicant sought an equalization payment, spousal support, and other relief in an undefended family law trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck for contempt due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The court imputed an income of $500,000 to the respondent based on his exotic car business and ordered an equalization payment of $1,226,522.00.

The court also awarded compensatory spousal support of $5,000 per month ongoing and $308,000 in retroactive support.

The court ordered the removal of a certificate of pending litigation on the applicant's property and placed a preservation order on a property beneficially owned by the respondent but legally held by his mother.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondent's bad faith and procedural delays.

The moving parties (defendants by counterclaim) brought a motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for defamation and loss of business reputation against the responding party (plaintiff).

The responding party had previously brought an action claiming ownership of a classic Ferrari, which was dismissed.

After the moving parties purchased the vehicle and sold it to a third party, the responding party's counsel sent an email to an auction house falsely claiming the vehicle was stolen.

The court found the statements were defamatory, false, and not protected by qualified privilege.

The court awarded $500,000 in damages for loss of business reputation due to the abrupt end of a profitable business relationship caused by the defamatory statements.

The claim for punitive damages was dismissed.