A. Spurgeon

The applicant sought a determination that she was engaged in a joint family venture regarding a property legally owned by her late husband, claiming unjust enrichment for a 50 percent share of the property's post-separation increase in value.

The parties had already resolved net family property equalization under the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the Family Law Act equalization scheme provided a categorical juristic reason for the enrichment, precluding the unjust enrichment claim.

The plaintiff estate brought a motion for summary judgment against two defendants, a numbered company and its director, arguing they were common employers with another related company against which the plaintiff already held an unsatisfied wrongful dismissal judgment.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by res judicata and that they were not common employers.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion against the corporate defendant, finding a clear objective intention to create an employment relationship within the interrelated family hotel business.

The court dismissed the claim against the individual director, finding no intention for him to be personally liable.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, as the common employer doctrine prevents the unjust application of res judicata to shield related corporate entities.

The plaintiff sued the manufacturer and installer of her pool cover after she inadvertently stepped on it, fell, and broke her ankles.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court found no evidence that the defendants breached any standard of care, noting the pool cover met industry standards and featured a clear warning label which the plaintiff had read.

The court concluded the injury was caused entirely by the plaintiff's own inadvertence in stepping on a visible and familiar hazard she knew to avoid.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.