F. Bruce Fitzpatrick

The parties separated after a short marriage and proceeded to trial to determine the valuation of their net family property.

The court resolved several disputes regarding the valuation of real estate, including a lakefront property and vacant land, heavily weighing expert appraisal evidence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the real estate market.

The court also determined that a property owned by the applicant qualified as a matrimonial home, classified various financial transfers as gifts rather than loans, and held that the respondent's contingent survivor pension benefit must be included in his net family property calculation.

The respondent was granted leave to obtain an uncontested divorce order prior to the final equalization calculation.

The applicant and respondent were in a common law relationship from 2007 to 2020.

Following separation, the applicant brought claims for unjust enrichment and repayment of a promissory note.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial after the respondent failed to participate.

The court granted judgment for $90,000 based on a 2016 written acknowledgment of debt.

However, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding insufficient evidence of a joint family venture, enrichment by the respondent, or corresponding deprivation by the applicant.

The applicant sought a declaration that his deceased mother was merely a legal title holder of a condominium and an order vesting title solely in his name.

The mother had been placed on title to assist the applicant in qualifying for a mortgage, and title was registered as tenants in common.

The court found the applicant's evidence regarding their intention to hold the property in joint tenancy to be self-serving and insufficient to rebut the registered title.

Noting that the mortgage remained in place, the court declined to grant the requested relief without evidence of the mortgagee's position, as a vesting order could adversely impact its secured interest.

The application was adjourned to allow the applicant to file further evidence, including consent from the mortgagee.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default in a mortgage enforcement action.

The defendant had attempted to file a statement of defence within the permitted time, but it was rejected by the court due to formatting errors.

The court applied the Franchetti factors and found that while the defendant moved promptly, the proposed defence lacked merit as it merely outlined offers to refinance for less than the outstanding debt.

The court concluded that setting aside the default would cause prejudice to the plaintiff and unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the municipality's application for an order to demolish above-ground construction on a contaminated property.

The appellants had proceeded with above-grade construction without a full building permit, having failed to obtain the required Record of Site Condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings and concluding that the demolition order was a proper exercise of discretion to enforce compliance with the Building Code Act.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of two decisions by City Council to sanction him based on reports from the Integrity Commissioner.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached the Code of Conduct by making disparaging comments in emails and by disclosing confidential complaint forms to other councillors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding no procedural unfairness in the investigations, no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Integrity Commissioner or City Council, and that the findings and sanctions were reasonable.

The parties, 50% shareholders in a trucking business, reached an impasse.

The applicant sought orders to operate the business and prepare tax filings, while the respondent moved for an interim injunction to freeze the business assets.

The court dismissed the respondent's injunction motion, finding he failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the applicant to generate revenue to pay corporate debts.

The court granted the applicant's motion, permitting him to operate the business exclusively for six months, open a corporate bank account, and ordering both parties to provide financial records to an accounting professional to address unfiled tax returns.

The applicant sought to discharge a 1965 mortgage registered on title to its property.

The original mortgagee and subsequent estate trustees had died, and the prior owners had represented the property was free of encumbrances when transferred in 1980.

The court found any claim under the mortgage was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act and that all monies had likely been paid.

The application was granted and the mortgage was ordered discharged without further payment.

The applicants sought an order to discharge a mortgage registered against their property in 1974 by the applicant's former employer.

The mortgage was paid in full by 1979 but never discharged from title due to inadvertence.

The respondent company did not appear and had not provided a discharge despite requests.

The court granted the application, finding that any claim under the mortgage was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act and that a discharge could not otherwise be obtained, warranting relief under the Mortgages Act.

The appellant appealed a Family Court trial decision that found the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and ordered him to pay spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the relationship, awarding support, and imputing income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence or error in law, and upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and support orders.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a warrant of committal issued for failing to pay approximately $3.5 million in child and spousal support arrears.

He also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding the documents failed the Palmer test as they were either available at the time of the default hearing, irrelevant, or not credible.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the two-part test for a warrant of committal by finding the appellant failed to comply with the default order and failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to retroactively terminate child support for his adult son and order repayment of $8,533.

The motion judge found the son remained entitled to support due to intellectual issues, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, which impeded his ability to become self-supporting.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a 90-day suspension of pay imposed by City Council for breaching the Code of Conduct.

The sanction followed an Integrity Commissioner's report finding the applicant made false statements and mishandled personal information at a town hall meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the factual findings were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Charter claims, noting they were not raised before the decision-maker and that the limits on her expression were justified by the need to protect public trust and staff dignity.

The appellant appealed an order of committal and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the motion, with written reasons to follow.

The court ordered costs of $20,000 payable forthwith to the Family Responsibility Office and directed the reissuance of the warrant of committal, lifting the previous stay.

The appellant passed away after perfecting an appeal of a final order arising from a binding judicial dispute resolution hearing.

Due to the appellant's death, the proceeding was automatically stayed.

Appellant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record as he could not obtain instructions from an authorized estate representative.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, ordered the proceeding to continue against the appellant's estate pursuant to rule 10.02, required the respondent to provide a status update within 90 days, and granted counsel's motion to be removed from the record.

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking interim child support, section 7 expenses, interim spousal support, arrears, and partition and sale of a jointly owned home.

The court rejected unilateral interim income imputation by the respondent and ordered temporary set-off child support based on sworn financial statement incomes, with no interim arrears determination.

The court also ordered interim spousal support at the low end of the SSAG range and declined interim arrears of spousal support due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

Relief respecting section 7 expenses was left to trial, and the partition and sale request was adjourned to a later date or conference.

Success was divided and no costs were awarded.

On a motion to vacate a construction lien, the moving party sought an order discharging the lien and vacating the related certificate of action on the basis that the lien was registered out of time under the Construction Act.

The court held the lien expired because it was filed on the 61st day after the last supply date pleaded, and also found the final cleanup and tool-removal activities were minor or trivial and did not extend lien rights.

The court declared the lien expired, ordered the lien and certificate vacated, and directed the matter to continue as an ordinary civil action under simplified procedure.

Leave was granted to amend pleadings to remove lien references, with procedural deadlines set.

Costs were fixed against the responding party.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing and accessing child pornography, and the parties presented a joint submission on sentence.

The court accepted an 18-month custodial term followed by three years' probation, finding the scale and nature of the material placed the offending in an upper reformatory range.

The defence sought to limit SOIRA registration to incarceration, but the court held the statutory presumption for a 20-year order was not displaced.

Applying s. 490.012 factors and recent appellate guidance, the court found ongoing registration would further the public purpose of preventing and investigating sexual offences.

The mortgagee brought a motion for an order requiring interim mortgage payments of $15,000 per month on a valid vendor take-back commercial mortgage of approximately $2.7 million arising from the purchase of a tourist lodge.

The respondents opposed, arguing the motion was an attempt to relitigate a previously dismissed partial summary judgment motion and that payments would cause financial hardship.

The court, noting the mortgage was valid, that no fraud was alleged, and that the respondents failed to provide current financial information to support their hardship claim, ordered interim without-prejudice payments of $12,000 per month commencing February 2026 until trial.

The court emphasized that contractual obligations in commercial matters are not to be lightly ignored and encouraged both parties to reassess the economic realities of the litigation.

The mortgagee brought a motion for interim mortgage payments on a valid commercial vendor take-back mortgage of approximately $2.7 million arising from the purchase of a tourist lodge.

The moving party sought $15,000 per month commencing August 2025 until trial.

The court ordered the responding parties to pay $12,000 per month commencing February 2026, finding that contractual obligations in commercial contracts are not to be lightly ignored, that the mortgagee was suffering significant economic consequences from non-payment, and that the responding parties failed to provide current financial information to support their claim of hardship.