Charles Baker

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Mounia Hassani Alami from a comprehensive trial judgment addressing property, support, and tort claims following the parties’ separation and divorce.

The appeal focused on the trial judge’s findings regarding a resulting trust in the matrimonial home and responsibility for a post-separation mortgage.

The Court upheld the trial judge’s application of the resulting trust doctrine and allocation of mortgage responsibility, finding no reviewable error.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, 961838 Ontario Ltd. o/a MacGyver Autobody & Collision, sought a declaration of its right to a five-year renewal of its commercial lease with the respondents.

The respondents argued the applicant was in default and not entitled to renewal.

The court found that the applicant was not in default regarding signage or rent increase, and, in any event, would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The applicant was granted the right to a five-year renewal under the lease.

The Plaintiffs, David Bruce Wynn and Jacqueline Mary Rocchio, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Defendants, George Kentris and Helga Kentris, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) of real property.

The Defendants failed to close the transaction.

The Plaintiffs also sought dismissal of the Defendants' counterclaim against them, which included allegations against the Plaintiffs' real estate agents.

The court found that the Defendants breached the APS and that the Plaintiffs had reasonably mitigated their damages.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs for damages and dismissed the counterclaim against the Plaintiffs, finding no genuine issue for trial and that partial summary judgment was appropriate given the severability of claims against the agents.

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal, arguing the appellant's appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that she had insufficient assets to pay costs.

The court found the appeal weak but not frivolous or vexatious, and determined that the appellant's 50% interest in the matrimonial home provided sufficient security for potential appeal costs and outstanding costs orders.

The court also noted the respondent's own outstanding child support arrears, which weighed against the equitable discretion to order security for costs.

The motion for security for costs, payment of outstanding costs orders, and sale of the matrimonial home was dismissed.

The Applicants, beneficiaries of an estate, challenged the compensation claimed by the Estate Trustees (Respondents) and the legal fees paid to the Respondents' law firm.

The court found that the Respondents could not rely on a compensation agreement incorporated into the will because it was not properly executed by the alternative trustee.

The court also found that the Respondents breached their fiduciary duty by requiring the Applicants to sign releases without proper explanation or advice, and by holding distributions hostage.

Applying the "five factors" for compensation, the court significantly reduced the executors' compensation from $300,000 to $194,933.84 plus HST, and disallowed a substantial portion of the legal fees claimed by the Respondents' firm, finding double-counting and unjustified charges.

The appellant brought an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a Superior Court of Justice order.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as there was no right of appeal to that court from the order below.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's $226 million claim for fraud and intentional torts as statute-barred.

The parties met on a 'sugar daddy' dating website, and the plaintiff alleged the defendant lied about having cancer and a broken leg to avoid meeting him.

The court found the plaintiff's own emails demonstrated he knew of the alleged fraud and that a legal proceeding was an appropriate remedy more than two years before he commenced the action.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed with costs.

Following a previous decision determining the date of cohabitation, the court finalized the issues of spousal support and property distribution.

The court found the mother was entitled to needs-based spousal support for a limited period, terminating on December 31, 2021, and awarded her $23,009 net of tax.

The net sale proceeds of the parties' property were distributed according to the parties' agreement, with the mother receiving $64,584.40 and the father receiving $289,775.23.

The parties, who were unmarried and had one child, disputed the date of cohabitation, the division of proceeds from a jointly owned home, spousal support, and the return of an engagement ring.

The court found the parties began cohabiting on May 10, 2017, when the applicant was added to the respondent's auto insurance.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the jointly owned home, dividing the proceeds 73% to the respondent and 27% to the applicant based on their respective contributions.

The applicant was awarded needs-based spousal support, and was permitted to keep the engagement ring or return it for a $14,000 credit.

This motion addressed the proper penalty for the respondents' contempt of a consent order prohibiting illegal dumping and site alteration.

The court had previously found the respondents in contempt due to their bad faith, lack of credibility, and continued breaches even after warnings.

The decision considered proportionality, mitigating and aggravating factors, deterrence, denunciation, and the contemnors' ability to pay.

The court imposed a fine of $110,000 payable to the Provincial Treasurer and ordered the respondents to pay $140,000 in full indemnity costs to the applicant, finding their conduct deliberate and disrespectful.

The plaintiff, Ms. Arias, sought a declaration of sole ownership of a home jointly titled with her former spouse, Mr. Sanchez, based on resulting trust, constructive trust, and proprietary estoppel.

Mr. Sanchez had co-signed the mortgage but made minimal financial contributions, while Ms. Arias bore the vast majority of expenses and repaid loans used for the down payment and to clear Mr. Sanchez's debts.

The court found Ms. Arias's evidence credible and Mr. Sanchez's evasive.

It concluded that Mr. Sanchez held his half-interest in trust for Ms. Arias, granting her sole ownership and dismissing Mr. Sanchez's application for partition and sale.

The plaintiff, Unlimited Motors Inc., sought an order to extend the set down deadline in an action concerning the purchase of two Lamborghini dealerships.

The motion was brought after the presumptive 5-year deadline, with the plaintiff's director citing personal health issues and family responsibilities as reasons for the delay.

The court granted the motion on terms, distinguishing its approach from a previous Master's decision in a related case by giving more weight to the plaintiff's personal circumstances, especially given the lack of cross-examination on the evidence and the defendants' failure to demonstrate actual prejudice.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's repudiation of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The defendant raised several defenses, including failure to tender, false bidding war, unjust enrichment, and failure to mitigate damages, and requested a stay of execution pending a third-party claim against her real estate agent.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, dismissing all defenses, and refusing to stay the judgment.

The plaintiffs, parents of one of the defendants, sought possession of a property, repayment of loans, and arrears of rent from their daughter and son-in-law.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging the property was held in trust for the daughter and seeking an award for unjust enrichment due to improvements made to the property.

The court found no resulting trust, determined that advances were loans, and established arrears of rent.

While the defendants' unjust enrichment claim for improvements was partially successful, a monetary award was set off against the amounts owed to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were granted judgment for the net amount and vacant possession of the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The defendants Frank Naccarato and Radeon Technologies Ltd. opposed the motion, while Radiant Hospitality Systems Ltd. took no position.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering the explanation for the litigation delay, the inadvertence in missing the deadline, the promptness of the motion, and the absence of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay adequately explained, the deadline missed due to inadvertence, the motion brought promptly, and no actual prejudice affecting the defendants' ability to defend.

Consequently, the motion was granted, setting aside the dismissal order and extending the time to set the action down for trial, with no costs awarded.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to reduce his child support obligations and arrears, as well as his life insurance obligations, under a 2012 separation agreement.

He argued his income had decreased due to job loss following a period of incarceration.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the applicant misrepresented his income when the agreement was signed and that genuine issues required a trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to provide full financial disclosure and that a trial was necessary to determine the proper interpretation of the separation agreement and the applicant's actual income.

The applicant, a professional corporation, sought a charging order against the respondent's property for outstanding legal fees from two matrimonial litigation matters.

The court dismissed the request for the Newmarket litigation, finding the applicant was not instrumental in preserving or recovering property in that context.

However, the court granted the charging order for the Lindsay litigation, broadly interpreting "recover" and "preserve" under section 34(1) of the Solicitors Act to include regaining possession of property wrongfully retained by another.

The court also affirmed that a charging order can attach to future funds and found prima facie evidence that the respondent might be unable to pay the fees without selling the property.

The defendant mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' (daughter and son-in-law) claim for an interest in a residential property and sought a writ of possession.

The plaintiffs claimed a resulting or constructive trust based on a $100,000 gift and upkeep expenses.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the property was transferred to the defendant and her late husband with independent legal advice after the plaintiffs defaulted on mortgages.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for resulting trust and unjust enrichment, granted summary judgment dismissing the action, and ordered vacant possession to the defendant by June 30, 2015.

In a real estate commission dispute, the plaintiff brokerage sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add an additional plaintiff and defendant and to plead rectification or rescission of an assignment of a listing agreement.

The defendant brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim on the basis that the assignment transferred all rights to commission to another brokerage and left the plaintiff without privity of contract.

The court held that amendments should generally be permitted unless clearly untenable or prejudicial and found the proposed amendments raised legally tenable issues regarding the enforceability of the assignment agreement, limitation periods, and potential duties owed by the proposed defendant brokerage.

The court also concluded that it was not plain and obvious that the limitation period had expired.

Leave to amend and add parties was granted and the motion to strike was dismissed.