C.A. Gilmore

The parties lived in a common law relationship for 13 years and purchased a home together.

Title was held as tenants in common with a 75% interest to the respondent and 25% to the applicant.

Following separation, the applicant sought an equal division of the house sale proceeds based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The respondent sought to enforce the 75/25 split or alternatively claimed deductions for a basement renovation, occupation rent, and the applicant's debt.

The court found that the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the applicant contributed significantly to the property.

The court ordered an equal division of the proceeds, dismissed the respondent's claims for deductions, and granted the applicant a restraining order due to a history of domestic abuse.

The plaintiff vendor and defendant purchaser entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property.

The purchaser paid an $80,000 deposit.

On the closing date, the purchaser's lawyer emailed the vendor's lawyer stating the purchaser did not have financing and could not close.

The vendor's lawyer responded with a letter accepting the anticipatory breach, stating the deposit was forfeited and the vendor would sue for damages.

The purchaser argued the acceptance was not clear and unequivocal because the vendor had discussions with a real estate agent about extending the closing.

The court found the vendor's lawyer's letter was a clear and unequivocal acceptance of the anticipatory breach and the discussions did not constitute a waiver.

The court ordered the $80,000 deposit paid to the vendor as damages and dismissed the purchaser's counterclaim.

The plaintiff and her small dog were attacked by the defendant's large dog, resulting in puncture wounds, scarring, and psychological trauma to the plaintiff.

Liability was previously established in an undefended proceeding.

Following an assessment of damages, the court awarded the plaintiff $28,000 in general damages, plus an OHIP subrogated claim and partial indemnity costs.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for an interest in her property and repayment of contributions to household expenses made during their cohabitation.

The court granted the defendant leave to amend her pleadings to include a Limitations Act defence, which barred most of the plaintiff's claim.

The court found that a written agreement between the parties was unenforceable due to duress and lack of consideration.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's contributions were akin to rent and not significant enough to establish a constructive trust.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, the certificate of pending litigation was discharged, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The appellant pleaded guilty to impaired operation and dangerous driving and was sentenced to three years' probation, fines, and consecutive driving prohibitions totaling five years.

He appealed the driving prohibition as demonstrably unfit.

The Crown conceded the consecutive prohibitions were an error.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge overemphasized denunciation, noting the appellant's lack of prior record, glowing pre-sentence report, and successful rehabilitation efforts.

The appeal was allowed and the driving prohibition was reduced to a total of two years.

The applicant daughter moved for an order for directions under Rule 75.06 to challenge her deceased father's holograph will, which disinherited her and her brother in favour of his second wife.

The respondent wife opposed, arguing the applicant lacked a financial interest and sufficient evidence of suspicious circumstances.

The court found the applicant had a potential financial interest on intestacy and presented sufficient evidence—including the testator's brain cancer, psychiatric issues, and the will's vitriolic language—to support an inference of suspicious circumstances.

The court granted the order for directions and appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following her arrest for allegedly assaulting the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession.

The court found that it was in the 15-year-old child's best interests to remain in the home pending its sale to minimize disruption.

The court dismissed both motions for exclusive possession and instead ordered a nesting arrangement where the mother resides in the home full-time except for alternate weekends when the father resides there.

A mutual restraining order was also issued.

The offender, a former financial advisor, was convicted of Fraud Over $5,000 for operating a Ponzi-type scheme over eight years, defrauding multiple victims, many of whom were friends or elderly clients.

The court found the offender's breach of trust and the devastating financial and emotional impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, ordered to pay restitution of $109,150, and issued a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount, with six years to pay following his release.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 for allegedly cashing cheques that should have been paid to a subcontractor's company for a commercial paving job.

The Crown alleged the accused registered a sole proprietorship with a similar name to divert the funds.

The court found the evidence of both the accused and the key Crown witnesses to be unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding the nature of their business partnership and the payment of materials.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three expert witnesses for an upcoming jury trial involving charges of attempted murder and criminal negligence causing bodily harm following a police pursuit and 'rolling block' takedown.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey frameworks to assess the admissibility of the proposed experts.

The court denied the qualification of a ballistics expert, finding the evidence unnecessary and potentially distracting.

However, the court permitted the defence to call an expert in police training and use of force, as well as an expert in accident reconstruction, concluding that their testimony would assist the jury in understanding the chaotic scene and the context of the police actions.

The moving party sought an order compelling the responding party to provide further particulars of allegations contained in a statement of defence and counterclaim in a commercial dispute concerning an equity investment and alleged misrepresentations.

The responding party argued that the request amounted to premature discovery and that extensive documentary evidence had already been produced in related proceedings.

The court reviewed the governing principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding when particulars are required to allow a party to plead and to define the issues.

The court held that several allegations concerning breaches of agreements, statutory violations, and misrepresentations required additional specificity.

Particulars were ordered for multiple categories of allegations, subject to later submissions on costs.

The defendant brought a motion to compel a representative of the plaintiffs to answer an undertaking arising from an examination for discovery regarding which Vitullo family member or related entity held an interest in a real estate brokerage connected to the transaction at issue.

The underlying action involved a claim for specific performance of a real estate transaction and a counterclaim alleging undisclosed conflicts of interest involving the broker and familial relationships.

The moving party argued the shareholding information was relevant to a pleaded conflict-of-interest allegation.

The responding party contended the question was irrelevant and that no undertaking had been given.

The court held the information was relevant to the pleadings and ordered the witness to provide the requested undertaking.

High-conflict custody dispute where each parent had primary care of one child following separation.

The court found that the parties were incapable of effective communication, rendering joint or parallel parenting unworkable.

Relying on expert evidence from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and Children’s Aid Society, the court emphasized the importance of siblings being raised together and determined that the mother was the more suitable custodial parent despite flaws in both parties’ conduct.

Sole custody of both children was granted to the mother with structured access to the father.

The court also addressed child support, retroactive support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, ultimately declining spousal support and equalization while establishing prospective child support and a credit mechanism for retroactive support.

The accused, charged with murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a third-party suspect defence, pointing to his co-accused who had previously pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact.

The court assessed whether there was a sufficient nexus between the third party and the offence, focusing on motive and opportunity.

Finding that the third party had a severe drug addiction requiring money and was present at the crime scene and with the accused during the relevant times, the court concluded there was some evidence to support the defence.

The application was granted, and the third-party suspect defence was permitted to be put to the jury.

A simplified procedure trial concerning alleged wrongful sale or removal of gym equipment following a commercial tenant lockout.

The corporate plaintiff sought damages for equipment leased to a fitness club, while the individual plaintiff claimed losses for equipment he personally owned.

Evidence revealed that the corporate plaintiff had been dissolved prior to the issuance of the claim, rendering its claim a nullity that could not be revived after the limitation period.

The court accepted that certain spin bikes and Cybex equipment personally owned by the individual plaintiff were wrongfully removed or sold by the defendants after the lockout.

Damages were assessed based on estimated market values derived from appraisals and auction evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment arising from a solicitor’s breach of undertaking to repay loans advanced to a client from settlement proceeds of litigation.

The solicitor conceded breach but argued liability was limited to the $40,000 expressly covered by written undertakings.

The court held that additional losses were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach because the lender relied on the undertaking and continued advancing funds while unaware of settlements.

Documentary evidence including cheques and a promissory note constituted sufficient corroboration under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

Summary judgment was granted for $100,000 plus pre‑judgment interest.

Two related condominium applications were heard together concerning unpaid common expenses for parking units associated with a residential condominium unit.

The owner relied on an error in the condominium corporation’s status certificate that failed to include common expense amounts for two parking spaces and argued it was bound by the certificate under s. 76 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation sought enforcement under s. 134 of the Act and confirmation of a condominium lien for unpaid common expenses.

The court held that while the status certificate bound the corporation for the fiscal year in which it was issued, it did not relieve the owner from ongoing obligations to contribute to common expenses thereafter.

The lien was confirmed but reduced due to the corporation’s initial error, with limited costs awarded.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment of a mortgage debt, possession of the mortgaged commercial property, dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaim, and leave to issue a writ of possession.

The defendants sought an adjournment to obtain counsel and additional documentation and argued that the mortgage assignment and notice requirements were defective.

The court held that the defendants failed to produce documentary evidence supporting their claims of mortgage renewal or payments and did not meet their obligation to put their best foot forward on the motion.

The court further found that notice of assignment through a notice of sale satisfied statutory requirements and that the mortgage was clearly in default.

Summary judgment and possession were granted, with issuance of a writ of possession delayed for thirty days to allow occupants to vacate.

The applicant sought the court's direction on whether she properly exercised her right under a separation and trust agreement to purchase the trust's 50% interest in the matrimonial home.

The applicant relied on an appraisal valuing the home at $700,000, while the property subsequently sold to a developer for $1.35 million.

The court ruled in favour of the respondent trustee, finding that the actual sale price was the best indicator of fair market value and that the trustee acted properly to maximize the trust's interest.

The plaintiff Bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a demand loan and for possession of a mortgaged commercial property.

Although the borrower was current on monthly payments, the Bank demanded repayment based on non-financial defaults, including the unauthorized transfer of the property to a limited partnership, late financial statements, and misrepresentations in statutory declarations.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the loan documents clearly permitted demand at any time and that the non-financial breaches justified the Bank's decision to call the loan.