A. Wilford

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.

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.

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 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.

The applicant, a grandson of the deceased who died intestate, sought a declaration that bank and investment accounts held jointly between the deceased and her surviving son formed part of the estate.

The respondent son argued that the accounts were joint with right of survivorship and therefore passed to him outside the estate.

Applying the presumption of resulting trust articulated in Pecore v. Pecore, the court held that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption with sufficient evidence of the deceased’s intention to gift survivorship rights.

The evidence consisted largely of the respondent’s self‑serving assertions and unsupported bank correspondence, while documentary banking records and other objective indicators of intention were absent.

The court concluded the jointly held funds reverted to the estate and were to be distributed pursuant to the intestacy regime under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including robbery and using an imitation firearm, arising from two home invasions.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The victim identified the accused, but the court found the identification evidence to be weak due to poor lighting, the use of disguises, and the victim's limited prior knowledge of the accused.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court believed the accused's denials and found that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.