Brent Marshall

The applicant and respondent cohabited for 23 years but were never married.

After separation, the applicant brought a claim for unjust enrichment and a share of the respondent's property, arguing they were engaged in a joint family venture.

The court dismissed the claim, finding both parties had significant credibility issues and the applicant failed to prove she made financial or non-pecuniary contributions that enriched the respondent.

The court concluded there was no mutual effort, economic integration, or actual intent to share assets.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and human rights damages, alleging he was forced out after taking a medical leave.

The employer argued the plaintiff voluntarily resigned and, alternatively, that there was just cause for termination because the plaintiff performed unauthorized side jobs for cash using company resources.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff was not constructively dismissed when the employer requested the return of his company vehicle and cellphone.

The court further held that even if he had been dismissed, the employer had just cause due to the plaintiff's breach of the duty of loyalty and misappropriation of company property.

The human rights claims were also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Hamilton to Walkerton, arguing that a fair trial could not be held in Hamilton due to the prominent philanthropic profile of the plaintiff's principal.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias among the Hamilton judiciary.

The court deferred deciding whether a transfer was desirable in the interests of justice under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) until a pending motion to set aside a default judgment in the action is resolved.

The applicant and respondent are brothers and shareholders in a corporation that owns a commercial property.

The respondent accepted an offer to sell the property on behalf of the corporation.

The applicant brought an oppression remedy application, alleging he was improperly excluded from management, and sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the property to prevent the sale.

The court dismissed the motion for a CPL, holding that a shareholder does not have a direct interest in the lands owned by the corporation, which is a requirement for a CPL under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court noted the appropriate remedy would be an injunction.