Allen Wilford

This decision addresses the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home following the breakdown of a common-law relationship.

The court determined that the parties engaged in a joint family venture from the time they obtained a joint line of credit.

Key issues included the treatment of the respondent's initial equity, CRA debts, the applicant's unsecured line of credit, and post-separation expenses and property value increases.

The court concluded that the increase in property value should be shared equally, while post-separation expenses were the sole responsibility of the respondent due to his exclusive use of the property and lack of cooperation in its sale.

The applicant, Kristy Rae Wheeler, sought costs following her successful motion to remove Allen Wilford and A. Wilford Professional Corporation as counsel for James Bruce MacAulay due to a conflict of interest, and to appoint s. 3 counsel for Mr. MacAulay.

The court found that Mr. Wilford's decision to defend the motion, despite a clear conflict, caused unnecessary costs.

The court awarded Ms. Wheeler partial indemnity costs, with a portion payable personally by Mr. Wilford and the remainder by Mr. MacAulay, as the motion also benefited Mr. MacAulay.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent's lawyer of record due to a conflict of interest, arguing the lawyer would be a material witness regarding disputed powers of attorney and real estate transactions.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to transfer the venue of the application.

The court dismissed the venue transfer motion for failing to comply with procedural rules.

The court granted the motion to remove the lawyer, finding that his involvement in the underlying transactions made him a necessary witness, creating a real conflict between his duty to the client and his duty to the court.

The court also directed the appointment of section 3 counsel for the respondent given the allegations regarding his capacity.

This motion concerned a property dispute where the applicant sought to convert an application into an action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the case involved material facts in dispute, complex issues requiring expert evidence, credibility assessments, and a need for pleadings and discoveries.

The conversion was deemed in the interests of justice, providing the respondent with the opportunity to pursue summary judgment and ensuring a more suitable procedural framework for the complex issues involved.

The court also indicated it would case manage the proceeding with strict deadlines.

Following a finding of civil contempt against the corporate defendant for failing to provide a court-ordered accounting regarding a mortgage, the court held a sentencing hearing.

The court found the defendant's subsequent attempt to purge its contempt was inadequate and obfuscating.

Applying the principles of proportionality and deterrence, the court declined to strike the statement of defence but imposed a $25,000 fine, holding the corporation and its directing mind jointly and severally liable.

The court also ordered full indemnity costs of $24,000 and directed the production of specific banking records.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an order declaring the defendant corporation in contempt of court for breaching a prior consent order (the Deposit Order).

The Deposit Order required the defendant to provide an accounting of mortgage payments and to deposit any payments received into its lawyer's trust account.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with the clear and unequivocal terms of the accounting and deposit provisions.

The defendant was found in contempt, with the penalty to be determined at a subsequent sentencing hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for an unpaid commercial account for animal feed supplied to the defendant's dairy goat farm.

The defendant disputed the debt, alleging the feed was defective, caused health issues and death in his herd, and claimed an equitable set-off for lost profits.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff proved the debt and the 30% annual simple interest rate.

The court dismissed the defences, noting the defendant failed to provide expert evidence linking the feed to the herd's health issues or financial evidence to support the set-off claim.

The plaintiff moved to deliver a fresh, amended statement of claim.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing it would waste years of effort and costs already invested in discovery and trial preparation.

The court allowed the amendments, noting that barring incompensable prejudice, the rules require amendments to be allowed.

Two paragraphs related to preventing mortgage enforcement were withdrawn on consent as the mortgage had already been enforced.

Costs of the motion were left in the cause as between the plaintiff and the self-represented defendant, and no costs were awarded between the plaintiff and the mortgagee defendant.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support, including section 7 expenses, for the parties' four children.

The respondent father claimed a significant drop in his construction income post-separation and denied having additional income.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and had hidden income through a vending machine business and other cash ventures, imputing his income at nearly $100,000.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing table support, retroactive table support arrears of $37,849, and section 7 expense arrears of $16,712.35.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for a debt owed under two private mortgages.

The defendants argued that the interest terms contravened sections 6 and 8 of the Interest Act because interest was prepaid and deducted from the advance, allegedly creating a blended mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the mortgages were clearly interest-only and that the interest rate increase was triggered by the passage of time, not default.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs sought a prescriptive easement over a lane on the defendant's adjacent farm property to access their landlocked parcel, as well as damages for trespass after the defendant removed a boundary fence and trees.

The court found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors had used the lane continuously from 1965 to 2002 with the acquiescence of the previous owners, establishing an easement under the doctrine of lost modern grant.

Relying on expert surveyor evidence, the court determined the boundary line was the centre of the historic snake rail fence.

The court held the defendant trespassed by removing the fence and trees, awarding the plaintiffs $35,000 in damages.

The applicant challenged the administration of his mother's estate by his sisters, the respondent executors.

The deceased was a hoarder, and the executors spent significant time cleaning and repairing her house to prepare it for sale.

Although the Will prohibited executor compensation, the court awarded the respondents $29,250 for their physical labour, finding it fell outside normal executor duties and significantly benefited the estate.

The court also approved the respondents' out-of-pocket expenses and found their method of distributing personal effects was fair.

The payor brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for three adult children and spousal support due to his impending retirement for medical reasons.

The recipient opposed the termination of spousal support and sought retroactive arrears.

The court found that the payor's retirement at age 56 with an unreduced pension was reasonable given his documented health issues and the stressful nature of his employment.

The court terminated child support on consent, declined to order retroactive arrears, and ordered step-down spousal support for a transitional period, followed by nominal support of $1 per month.

Following a family law trial where the respondent mother obtained sole custody and the applicant father obtained more generous access, the parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs based on her success and an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the issue of access but noted the father's unreasonable conduct during litigation.

The court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs in the amount of $18,126.84.

The unmarried parents of a five-year-old child both sought sole custody and primary residency following a high-conflict separation.

The mother had been the de facto custodial parent since separation.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate necessitated a sole custody order.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residency, noting her role as the primary caregiver and her sound judgment regarding the child's care.

The father was granted regular access and ordered to pay child support.

The Applicant sought costs after the Respondent accepted her Offer to Settle, which included an equalization payment and payment for line of credit debt.

The court considered the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, particularly the Respondent's failure to make reasonable offers and his reliance on unsubstantiated allegations in costs submissions.

The court awarded the Applicant costs fixed at $33,000, plus $1,627 for reply submissions, finding this to be slightly more than 75% of full recovery costs, justified by the Respondent's conduct and the late settlement.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that granted far-reaching relief to the respondent regarding amounts allegedly owing on a 1994 second mortgage and a 1997 judgment on the covenant.

The Court of Appeal found that the relief granted by the motion judge could not stand.

The court determined that the amounts were duplicated in the judgment, the underlying second mortgage was extinguished by power of sale proceedings, and the debt was extinguished by the bankruptcies of the deceased and one of the defendants.

The court also rejected the finding of fraudulent conveyance and found the claim regarding farm equipment proceeds to be statute-barred.

The only claim that survived was for child support arrears and unpaid costs awards relating to child support.

Following a five-day trial where the father successfully opposed the mother's request to relocate with their child to the United States, the father sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The mother argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the father was entitled to costs as the successful party but rejected substantial indemnity, noting the mother's conduct was not unreasonable despite her weak position.

After adjusting for arithmetic errors, non-trial related work, and excessive disbursement rates, the court awarded the father discounted partial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' two-year-old child from Ontario to Pennsylvania.

The father opposed the move, arguing it would unduly hamper his relationship with his son.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended permitting the move.

The court rejected the OCL's recommendation, finding the mother had exaggerated the father's difficulties and had a history of thwarting access.

The court concluded the proposed move was not in the child's best interests as it would significantly compromise the father's access and relegate him to the role of a distant relative.

The parties met online, married in China, and the respondent sponsored the applicant to come to Canada.

The marriage broke down shortly after her arrival.

The court determined the date of separation based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence.

The applicant's claim for equalization was dismissed as the respondent's net family property was zero.

The court awarded non-compensatory spousal support of $900 per month for nine months, considering the short duration of the marriage, the immigration sponsorship agreement, and the applicant's ability to work.