Anne Marie DiSanto

The appellant appealed a lower court's decision, challenging the admissibility of a recording and the finding that a joint tenancy had been severed.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding the recording's inadmissibility, finding it relevant and admissible.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the application judge's decision on joint tenancy severance, as it was a fact-specific inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the estate, noting the litigation was necessitated by the deceased's actions.

Following a decision on cross-applications regarding the severance of a joint tenancy and a life interest in a property, the court determined the costs.

The court found divided success between the parties.

Because the litigation was necessitated by the testator's failure to unambiguously sever the joint tenancy during his lifetime, the court ordered the Estate to pay the partial indemnity costs of both the Salga applicants and Ms. Marley, as well as the full indemnity costs of the Estate Trustee.

The Salga applicants were ordered to pay Ms. Marley's substantial indemnity costs for an unnecessary consolidation motion.

This case involved two applications concerning the estate of Leslie Salga, primarily disputing the ownership of the matrimonial home.

The Salga applicants (daughters of the deceased) sought a declaration that a joint tenancy between their father and his wife, Karen Marley, was severed, allowing Leslie Salga's half-interest to pass through his will to them.

Karen Marley sought a declaration of sole ownership by right of survivorship or, alternatively, an increased share due to unjust enrichment and capital improvements.

The court found that the joint tenancy was severed by a "course of dealing" between Leslie Salga and Karen Marley, evidenced by the will and a recorded conversation, establishing a tenancy in common.

Consequently, Leslie Salga's half-interest became part of his estate.

The court dismissed the Salga applicants' request to force the immediate sale of the property, upholding Karen Marley's life interest as per the will.

Karen Marley's claims for unjust enrichment and capital improvements were also dismissed.

The Applicant, Sarah Stoughton, sought costs following a 10-day trial where she was largely successful on issues of custody, primary residence, and child support.

The Respondent, Jessica O'Ney, argued for no costs.

The court found the Applicant to be the successful party and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $19,000 inclusive of HST.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as only a small portion of the trial involved child support.

Additionally, the court determined the Respondent's 2018 income for child support purposes to be $27,889.40 Cdn and ordered monthly child support of $235 commencing September 1, 2019.

This judgment addresses a custody and parenting time dispute between two mothers, Sarah and Jessica, regarding their four-year-old son, Rory.

The primary issue was determining Rory's primary residence and school location, as the parents lived in different countries (Ontario, Canada and New York, USA) and the current equal parenting schedule was impractical for full-time schooling.

The court found joint custody inappropriate due to poor parental communication and awarded sole custody and primary residence to Sarah, with Rory to attend school in the Niagara Region of Ontario.

Specific parenting time was ordered for Jessica, along with child support.

Following a previous endorsement granting the respondent's motion for an extension of time to file a financial statement, the court received written submissions on costs.

The court had ordered costs payable to the applicant as a term of indulgence rather than for bad faith.

The court fixed the costs of the motion at $1,500, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a financial statement in the context of an underlying motion to change access and child support.

The responding party opposed the extension, arguing the moving party should be barred from further participation due to his failure to provide financial disclosure or file tax returns for three years.

The court granted the extension to prevent prejudice to the children, but imposed conditions including costs and a strict deadline for a settlement conference.