Colin McCorriston

Following the death of the respondent, the applicant brought a motion for an accounting and the return of the remaining balance of a $15,000 advance previously ordered to be paid for the respondent's legal costs.

The respondent's counsel brought a cross-motion to be removed as solicitor of record, citing the loss of an instructing client and concerns over solicitor-client confidentiality regarding the accounting.

The court granted both motions, ordering the counsel to provide an accounting with permitted redactions for privilege, return any surplus funds, and removing him as counsel of record.

The General Manager of OHIP appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that granted the respondent reimbursement for non-emergency out-of-country hip surgery.

The surgery was performed before the General Manager issued a final decision denying the funding application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the HSARB unreasonably interpreted a request for further information as a denial of services.

Furthermore, the Court held that under the Health Insurance Act regulations, prior written approval from the General Manager is a mandatory prerequisite for reimbursement of non-emergency out-of-country medical services, and neither the General Manager nor the HSARB has the authority to retroactively approve such expenses.

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for an equalization payment under the Family Law Act, and a declaration that his equitable claims based on unjust enrichment and trust doctrines were within the applicable limitation periods.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant failed to meet the good faith requirement for an extension and that equitable claims were time-barred by a two-year limitation period.

The court granted the extension, finding the applicant acted in good faith by prioritizing family needs and being deterred by the respondent's conduct, and declared the equitable claims were subject to a ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the two-year period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The responding party brought a motion to vary and set aside a prior court order that had been based on a separation agreement.

The court found that the agreement had been drafted by the other party and signed without legal advice or proper financial disclosure, and in circumstances involving coercion and safety concerns.

Considering the brief and tumultuous relationship, the short period of cohabitation, and the support already paid, the court concluded that continued enforcement of the agreement was not warranted.

The prior order was terminated retroactively, arrears were rescinded, and enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office was stayed.