Alexander Minkin

The defendant appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion to transfer a Simplified Procedure action to the Small Claims Court.

The master had declined the transfer because the action was already scheduled for a summary trial in the Superior Court, and a transfer would cause prejudicial delay.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the master's exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed, and fresh evidence admitted on consent did not alter the outcome.

The Estate of Psarros brought an action against Lorraine Cook, the deceased's wife, concerning the disposition of their matrimonial home and the validity of a marriage contract.

Prior to their marriage, Psarros and Cook purchased a house as tenants in common.

Their marriage contract mistakenly stated they owned the house as joint tenants and included a release of Cook's claims under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

After Psarros died intestate, the Estate sought to sell its half-interest in the property to Cook, who initially agreed but later challenged the property's ownership structure and the validity of her SLRA release due to the contract's mistake.

The court found that the mistake in the marriage contract did not constitute an appropriate basis to set aside Cook's SLRA release under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, as she had not been under the impression she owned the entire house and the error did not extend to the SLRA release.

The court also determined that while the Estate was entitled to occupation rent, it was wholly offset by Cook's payment of the Estate's share of expenses.

The action was allowed, binding Cook to purchase the Estate's interest in the property based on the marriage contract's terms.

Competing motions arose regarding funding the care of an incapable elderly woman under the Substitute Decisions Act.

One child sought to increase a line of credit secured against the incapable person’s Toronto condominium to fund ongoing care, while other siblings sought an order to sell a Florida condominium allegedly jointly owned with one sibling.

The court held that the urgent need to maintain care justified extending the line of credit, while disputes concerning ownership, expenses, occupation rent, and tax consequences relating to the Florida property required further evidentiary determination.

A bifurcated hearing was ordered to resolve those issues before determining whether the Florida property should be sold.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' 2001 action for delay.

The court reviewed the Master's discretionary decision on a standard of palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The court found that the Master properly considered the evidence, including the parties' settlement negotiations and the lack of actual prejudice to the defendants, who acted as an allied group.

The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were permitted to continue the action.

The client sought an order referring two solicitor accounts for assessment under the Solicitors Act and requested a sealing order over the proceeding due to solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the earlier account had been settled and paid as a final account and therefore could only be assessed upon proof of special circumstances.

No evidence of fraud, misconduct, or special circumstances was established, and the account was not an interim account connected to a continuing retainer.

The later account was referred for assessment on consent.

The court granted a sealing order because the materials contained privileged communications and detailed legal billing records whose disclosure could reveal solicitor‑client communications.