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 appellant was successful in her appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $12,026.61.

The respondents argued against awarding costs despite the general rule that the successful party is entitled to them.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to depart from the general rule and awarded the appellant $10,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The costs of the underlying application were remitted to the application judge for determination.

The tenants entered into a commercial lease with the landlord.

The landlord served a notice of breach for failing to provide copies of insurance policies, and subsequently terminated the lease and re-entered the premises.

The application judge found the notice invalid under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act because it lacked a demand for monetary compensation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a demand for monetary compensation is not mandatory and may be waived by the landlord if they do not intend to insist on recovery for damages compensable in money.

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.

Following a successful appeal where a new trial was ordered, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The court noted that while the appellants were successful, they could have achieved the same result with more judicious effort.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable following the new trial or settlement.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their action regarding a defective well in a real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made two palpable and overriding errors.

First, the trial judge misinterpreted testimony regarding when modifications were made to the Seller Property Information Statement.

Second, the trial judge failed to consider and evaluate the evidence of several witnesses, including an expert hydrogeologist, who testified that the well was defective prior to the sale.

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.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $33,000 as compensation for her contribution to the family residence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings that the residence was a gift from the appellant's father to the appellant, and that the respondent had contributed to its increased value.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $20,000 for the appeal and $10,000 for the trial.