Adam Marchioni

The applicants, five adult children of the deceased, brought an application against the deceased's spouse, the respondent, claiming that approximately $7,000,000 in assets held either in the respondent's name or jointly were held on a resulting trust for the deceased's estate.

The court found that the deceased had a history of placing assets in others' names to avoid creditors.

The respondent failed to comply with court orders to produce financial records to prove she contributed to the assets, leading the court to draw adverse inferences against her.

The court concluded that the deceased funded the assets and did not intend to gift them to the respondent, declaring all disputed assets to be held on a resulting trust for the estate.

The plaintiff's action and the defendant's third party claim arising from a failed real estate transaction were dismissed on consent following a summary judgment motion.

The court was tasked with determining liability for and the quantum of costs.

Applying the principles from Milina v. Bartsch, the court found that the third party claim naturally and inevitably flowed from the plaintiff's action, justifying a departure from the normal rule that a defendant pays the costs of a third party it brings into the litigation.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of both the defendant and the third parties.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $20,000 plus HST and disbursements for each, as the amounts claimed were disproportionate to the complexity of the proceeding.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for the monetary value of a 5% ownership interest in a radio station and for the return of capital injections she made to the station.

The defendants argued she lacked standing because the funds were advanced via corporate cheques from her companies.

The court rejected this defence, finding the defendants knew they were dealing with her personally.

The court awarded the plaintiff $83,915.75 against the corporate defendant.

The corporate defendant's cross-claim against the former owner for indemnity was granted.

Claims against the individual defendants were dismissed.