Aly Virani

The applicant law firm brought a motion seeking a declaration that the respondent abandoned her motion to challenge the retainer agreement in an assessment proceeding concerning unpaid legal fees.

The respondent served a notice of motion in May 2023 but failed to file it with the court or book a hearing date for over two years, despite repeated follow-up communications from the applicant.

The court found that while the respondent's conduct was deleterious, she did not demonstrate an intention to abandon the motion.

The court granted the respondent a final opportunity to file and serve her motion record with a return date by November 21, 2025, with the warning that failure to do so would result in the motion being deemed abandoned.

The court awarded costs of $12,000 to the applicant.

The applicant sought an urgent case conference or motion date at TBST Court to remove the respondent from his home, claiming they were only together for four months and were not spouses.

The respondent's brief revealed they had lived together since 2013, were engaged, and the applicant was currently living with his daughter as a surety after being charged with assaulting the respondent.

The court found the matter was not urgent, noting the applicant's brief was selective to the point of being misleading and misused the TBST Court process.

The request was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the respondent.

The respondent sought leave to amend her Answer to claim retroactive and ongoing child support for her adult daughter from a previous relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was legally untenable because the daughter was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendment pleaded facts that could support a finding that the daughter remained a child of the marriage at the material time, and that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has called into question the strict jurisdictional bar on retroactive support for adult children.

The appellants, estate trustees of Albert Curé's estate, appealed a trial judgment that interpreted a cohabitation agreement between Albert and Helen Kilitzoglou.

The trial judge found that Albert intended to care for Helen for the rest of her life and ordered the estate to pay all capital repairs and expenses to the residence after the initial three-year period, and apportioned realty taxes and insurance on a 50/50 basis.

The trial judge also found bad faith on the part of the trustees and awarded punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by allowing his view of the factual matrix to overwhelm the words of the contract.

The dominant theme of the agreement was that each party would remain financially independent with no obligation to support the other.

The court held that Helen was responsible for all ordinary and reasonable costs of maintaining the residence after three years, including realty taxes and insurance, and that the estate was responsible only for the outstanding mortgage.

Estate trustees sought repayment of an equitable interest in a property purchased by the defendants with funds advanced by the deceased, claiming a resulting trust.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred and that the funds were resolved by a share distribution.

Both parties sought summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the action, finding the claim for a resulting trust in real property was statute-barred by the 10-year limitation period under section 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act, with the right to action accruing at the time the trust was created or, at the latest, when the property was sold.