Claude-Alain Burdet

The moving party brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking to add a closely held corporation as a respondent, amend the pleadings, ratify service on the corporation, and obtain related procedural relief.

The responding party opposed the addition of the corporation, arguing the corporate shares were excluded property under the Family Law Act and that the corporation had no legal interest in the litigation.

The court held that the alleged excluded property status had not yet been proven and that the corporation could be substantially affected by the final judgment.

The court therefore granted the motion to add the corporation and to amend the pleadings, ratified service, and refused the responding party’s request to adjourn and proceed with a child support motion due to delays and failure to provide financial disclosure.

In a family law proceeding concerning equalization of net family property, the moving party sought to add a family farm corporation as a party and requested an order disqualifying the respondent’s lawyer from acting for the corporation due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The court considered whether the lawyer could represent both the corporation and the majority shareholder in circumstances where the minority shareholder alleged misconduct and oppression.

Evidence showed the lawyer had arranged a loan to the corporation through a company whose directors were members of his family.

Applying principles governing solicitor loyalty and conflicts of interest, the court held that a lawyer cannot simultaneously represent a corporation and its majority shareholder where allegations of misconduct by that shareholder are at issue.

The court found both a real and apparent conflict and ordered the lawyer and his firm to cease acting for the corporation.

The plaintiffs and the court-appointed Administrator brought motions to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action.

The defendant had obtained the dismissal order ex parte on December 31, 2012, relying on a prior endorsement that required the action to be set down by December 29, 2012.

However, the defendant failed to disclose to the Registrar that the court had subsequently extended the deadline to February 28, 2013.

The court found that the defendant's failure to disclose the extension constituted a material misstatement and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The dismissal order was set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The parties, brother and sister, disputed the ownership of a property previously owned by their late father.

The father had originally transferred the property into joint tenancy with the son.

Years later, the father unilaterally severed the joint tenancy and transferred his resulting one-half interest to the daughter.

The son sought to set aside the transfer, arguing it was procured by the daughter's undue influence and that the original joint tenancy was an irrevocable inter vivos gift.

The court dismissed the son's claims, finding that a joint tenancy can be unilaterally severed and that the father, while elderly, acted independently and was not under the daughter's dominating influence.

An accounting of the property's rental income and expenses was ordered.

During a telephone case conference, the court addressed scheduling and procedural matters relating to an upcoming motion and cross‑motion between multiple plaintiffs and a defendant acting in trust.

The court established timelines for confirming counsel’s availability, serving the defendant’s cross‑motion materials, and exchanging factums.

It also scheduled tentative hearing dates for the motion and cross‑motion and directed that argument be completed within one day.

The endorsement functions purely as a case management order facilitating the efficient progression of the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim, approval of a discovery plan, and an order permitting inspection of condominium units for expert examination under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court adjourned the request to amend the statement of claim to permit further revisions.

Although Rule 29.1 obligates parties to agree upon a discovery plan without court intervention, the court imposed a discovery plan due to longstanding acrimony, extensive delay, and the absence of completed discoveries in an action commenced in 2001.

The court also granted the plaintiffs authority under Rule 32.01 to have an expert inspect specified condominium units for by-law contraventions and changes of use.

No costs were awarded due to both parties’ failure to cooperate in establishing a discovery plan.

Following the dismissal of an application that was found to be without merit, the applicant and the respondent union both sought costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs, noting the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The respondent union was awarded costs fixed at $12,000, payable by the applicant.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion to remove the defendants' lawyer, who was also a defendant, arguing he would be a material witness and had a conflict of interest.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyers, alleging they had become part of the litigation and were necessary witnesses.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion in part, disqualifying the defendants' lawyer for issues to be tried after an upcoming June 2012 trial, but allowing him to remain for the June trial itself.

The defendants' cross-motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyers was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order granting partial summary judgment to the respondent condominium corporation for unpaid common expense charges (condo fees).

The appellants argued that the claim for arrears should not have been separated from their counterclaims and set-off claims, which were directed to trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 84(3)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998 requires unit owners to pay common expenses regardless of any other claims between the parties.

The motion judge correctly found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the arrears and properly ordered the release of trust funds to partially satisfy the judgment.