Benoit Richer

Le jugement porte sur la qualification des contributions financières faites par Sylvain Laplante à Karen Bellemare lors de leur relation de fait, notamment en lien avec l'achat et l'entretien d'une résidence.

Le tribunal conclut que les contributions de Laplante ne constituaient pas un loyer, mais donnaient plutôt ouverture à une fiducie résultoire et à une réparation pour enrichissement sans cause, en raison de l'absence d'intention de donation et de la contribution substantielle de Laplante à la mise de fonds et aux dépenses de la propriété.

La décision détaille les critères applicables à la fiducie résultoire, à l'enrichissement sans cause et à la coentreprise familiale, et fixe la compensation monétaire due.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to vary a separation agreement, seeking joint custody, alternating weekly access, and a corresponding adjustment to child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The central dispute was whether the children resided with the father at least 40% of the time between July and December 2014.

The court found that the father met the 40% threshold during this period and ordered a set-off adjustment for child support, resulting in a reimbursement for overpayments.

Claims for retroactive section 7 expenses by both parties were dismissed due to delay and potential hardship.

The father was awarded $3,500 in costs.

In a family law proceeding, the moving party sought leave to withdraw a previously filed notice of withdrawal and to schedule a new settlement conference.

The notice of withdrawal had been filed after repeated failures to comply with court-ordered financial disclosure.

The court found the explanations for non-disclosure not credible and concluded the withdrawal had been used as a tactical maneuver to delay proceedings.

Given the repeated non-compliance, unpaid costs, and lack of evidence supporting the requested custody relief, the motion was dismissed.

The responding party was permitted to proceed with the matter by way of an uncontested trial.

The moving party sought summary judgment against the responding party for breach of a leasing contract.

The court applied Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “full appreciation of the evidence” test from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The court found that the responding party had confirmed receipt of the leased equipment and made twelve monthly payments before defaulting.

The evidence established that the responding party breached the contract and that any dispute with the equipment supplier did not affect his obligations to the leasing company.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the moving party for the amounts owing under the contract.