M. Claire Wilkinson

The respondent husband brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home to obtain funds for legal expenses and to continue making support payments.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing that she had established a prima facie case for a vesting order to satisfy her claims for equalization and spousal support, and that the sale would prejudice her rights.

The court found that the wife had established a prima facie case for substantial equalization and retroactive spousal support payments exceeding the husband's equity in the home, and that the wife would suffer prejudice if the home were sold before trial.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, arguing that the plaintiff's inordinate and inexcusable delay in advancing the litigation created a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list and to compel the defendant to attend examination for discovery.

The court found that while delay was inordinate, it was excusable because the defendant's former counsel was primarily responsible for the delay by failing to serve a sworn affidavit of documents despite three court orders.

The court found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant and restored the action to the trial list.

The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was dismissed to avoid further delay.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser in a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant refused to close on the purchase of a property after the title transferred from the original seller (Esther Hunter) to her Powers of Attorney (the plaintiffs' children) prior to the closing date.

The defendant claimed he was justified in refusing to close because he could not obtain title insurance due to concerns about the validity of the Power of Attorney.

The court found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was binding despite the title transfer, that the defendant did not provide a valid written objection to title by the required deadline, and that the requisitions raised were not proper title objections.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $248,318.60 less the $40,000 deposit, totaling $208,318.60, plus pre-judgment interest.

The defendant's counterclaim for return of the deposit was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Morguard Investments Limited, brought a negligence claim against the defendants, Alectra Inc. and Alectra Utilities Corporation, for damages resulting from a power outage during emergency electrical repairs.

The defendants cut power to the plaintiff's commercial premises in freezing temperatures to repair a broken electrical switch.

The power outage caused the plaintiff's hydronic heating system to freeze and burst, resulting in water damage.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that while the defendants may have owed a duty of care, the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of the standard of care.

The court determined that the plaintiff, as the building owner, was in the best position to know its heating system and should have alerted the defendants to the risk of pipes freezing in freezing conditions.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

Defendants brought a motion to set aside their noting in default and obtain a timetable to file a statement of defence in a real estate commission dispute.

The plaintiffs claimed unpaid commission fees of $47,460 plus aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages of $35,000 arising from a buyer representation agreement.

The defendants delayed serving their statement of defence for 319 days after being served with the statement of claim, despite multiple extensions and clear deadlines.

The defendants cited their child's autism diagnosis and required international medical treatment as the reason for delay, but provided insufficient supporting documentation.

The court found the defendants' behaviour unreasonable, the delay inordinate, the reason for delay inadequately substantiated, and the defence lacking in merit.

The motion was denied and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order declaring the applicant, as trustee for a bankrupt individual, and/or the bankrupt individual, to be vexatious litigants requiring leave to commence further court actions.

The respondent also sought dismissal of the applicant's application to enforce a foreign judgment as frivolous, vexatious, or without merit.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no evidence that the applicant was a vexatious litigant or that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court emphasized that the applicant, as a court-appointed trustee in bankruptcy, occupied a distinct legal position from the bankrupt individual and that the respondent's arguments regarding the merits of the underlying application were better addressed at the hearing of the application itself.

This trial involved claims for unjust enrichment between parties following the breakdown of a common law relationship that lasted from 2012 to 2017.

The applicant claimed compensation for unpaid labour provided to the respondent's wallpapering business, occupation rent for properties, and ownership disputes regarding jointly owned real property.

The respondent counterclaimed for unjust enrichment based on renovation work and mortgage contributions.

The court found the applicant entitled to $81,000 for unpaid labour to the business, the respondent entitled to $30,625.83 for half of mortgage payoff funds advanced to the applicant, and the parties to be equal 50% owners of the jointly purchased property.

No occupation rent was awarded to either party.

This decision resolves a parenting dispute between Mavis Amanquah and Gbenga Bumni Oluwamuyide, addressing decision-making responsibility, primary residence, parenting schedule, travel and documentation for the children, life insurance to secure child support, and retroactive child support and s.7 expenses.

The court grants the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, sets a detailed parenting schedule, and orders the father to pay retroactive support and maintain life insurance for the children.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law trial regarding the primary residence of a four-year-old child, S.P., following the separation of her parents, Sanjay Patel and Beejal Yogesh Sesha Patel.

The court considered issues of relocation, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that it was in S.P.'s best interests to continue residing with her mother in London, England, and for the existing parenting schedule to remain in place.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive spousal support, and set out directions for the continuation of the trial on outstanding financial issues.

The court determined the equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage between Supreet Walia and Ashutosh Walia.

The applicant, Supreet Walia, sought an unequal division, alleging the respondent understated his net family property and hid assets.

The court dismissed claims against the respondent’s parents and their company, focusing solely on the spouses.

After detailed analysis of assets, liabilities, and credibility, the court found Supreet Walia entitled to an equalization payment of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest, rejecting claims for unequal division based on unconscionability or family violence.

The court considered whether the respondent, Marlene Francis, was unjustly enriched by the applicant, Vern Darchie Douglas, during their lengthy cohabitation.

Douglas claimed financial and other contributions to the property entitled him to compensation or a constructive trust.

The court found that while Douglas did not prove unjust enrichment regarding the down payment or ongoing mortgage payments, he was entitled to $18,000 for renovations and repairs that increased the property's value.

The court declined to find a joint family venture and awarded a monetary remedy rather than a proprietary interest.

This decision resolves competing applications between a commercial landlord and tenant regarding the use of a basement in a leased property.

The landlord, Danica Schindler, sought to terminate the lease with DFIV Corp. for alleged breaches, including unauthorized use of the basement and installation of equipment.

The tenant countered that use of the basement was an implied term and that the landlord breached the lease by restricting access and failing to provide adequate HVAC.

The court found the lease did not include the basement, the tenant breached the lease by using the basement and installing equipment without consent, and the landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession.

The Town of Caledon sought a declaration that the respondents failed to comply with a consent order requiring removal of structures, trucks, trailers, and equipment from their property.

The respondents argued substantial compliance and requested more time.

The court interpreted the order as requiring removal of all such items, not just those associated with a transportation depot, and found the respondents in breach.

The respondents were given 60 days to comply, after which the Town may remove the items at the respondents’ expense.

This trial concerned the validity and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties after mediation.

The applicant sought to uphold the agreement, while the respondent argued it should be set aside due to alleged non-disclosure of assets and a lack of understanding of the agreement's nature and consequences, including claims of unconscionability and ineffective counsel.

The court found the Minutes of Settlement valid and enforceable, rejecting the respondent's arguments regarding non-disclosure, lack of understanding, and unconscionability, emphasizing that the respondent had legal representation and ample time to consider the agreement.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for repayment of investment funds and to amend their Statement of Claim to plead fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants sought to remove a Mareva injunction.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their Statement of Claim, maintained the Mareva injunction, and granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs for $1,617,679.53, finding fraudulent misrepresentation by the principal defendant.

Issues of additional quantum owed and punitive damages were reserved for trial.

The plaintiff, RiverRock Mortgage Investment Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a defaulted mortgage against the defendants, Amadeus Blazys and Luisa Blazys, seeking judgment for the outstanding amount, possession of the property, and leave to issue a Writ of Possession.

The defendants argued that the action should be dismissed due to RiverRock's breaches of the Mortgages Act and the Interest Act, challenging the timing of the Statement of Claim relative to the Notice of Sale, the validity of certain fees (including a renewal fee and a three-month interest penalty upon default), and the interest rate.

The court granted summary judgment to RiverRock for the principal, prejudgment interest, renewal fee, property tax reimbursement, and some additional fees, but disallowed the three-month interest penalty and certain other fees (NSF, default proceedings fee) as offending the Interest Act.

The court also granted leave nunc pro tunc for the Statement of Claim to be issued before the Notice of Sale period expired, noting that this procedural irregularity would be considered in costs.

This eight-day trial addressed the validity of a Separation Agreement, child support, and parenting arrangements.

The court upheld the Separation Agreement as valid, allowing the applicant to purchase the matrimonial home for $50,000 plus prejudgment interest, with CRA liens to be resolved by the applicant paying the CRA directly.

The respondent's claims to set aside the agreement, for occupation rent, spousal support, and pension equalization were dismissed.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $556 per month and retroactive child support of $15,819.72, along with 38% of past and future s.7 expenses (except post-secondary, which are 50/50).

Joint decision-making responsibility for the child was maintained.

This ruling addresses four summary judgment motions concerning two defaulted mortgage loans.

The plaintiff lenders sought summary judgment against the defendant borrowers for repayment.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraud and conspiracy by various parties, including the lenders and their lawyers, and sought relief under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

The court granted summary judgment to the lenders for the outstanding mortgage amounts but stayed enforcement pending the resolution of the counterclaim.

The counterclaim against the lenders (Flexpark, Westhaven, and related individuals) was allowed to proceed to trial due to genuine issues of fact regarding fraud and collusion.

However, the counterclaim against the lenders' lawyers (Sandra De Bartolo and Di Mauro Law Professional Corporation) was dismissed, as they owed no duty of care to the borrowers and no evidence of their involvement in fraud was presented.

The court found insufficient evidence to apply the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

This trial concerned a motion to change a 2006 final order regarding child and spousal support.

The Father sought to terminate child and spousal support and obtain reimbursement for overpayments.

The Mother sought continuation of support, retroactive s.7 expenses, and other reimbursements.

The court found the Father owed significant retroactive child support due to non-disclosure of income, but terminated ongoing child and spousal support.

The Mother was granted retroactive s.7 expenses from October 2018, but was ordered to reimburse the Father for spousal support overpayments.

The Mother's claims for tax penalty reimbursement and missed parenting time compensation were dismissed.

The Applicant, Mari Jane Awitan Coronel-Tan, proceeded with an uncontested trial seeking sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' eight-year-old child, Jaden, and an order that all parenting time with the Respondent, Lorden Tan, be at her sole discretion.

The Applicant also sought to sever the divorce from corollary issues.

The Respondent, who was self-represented and served by substituted service, did not file an Answer.

The court granted the Applicant's requests for sole decision-making and discretionary parenting time, and allowed the divorce to proceed on an uncontested basis.

The Applicant had also withdrawn a request for unequal division of net family property, asserting that the Respondent's claim for equalization had expired under s.7(3) of the Family Law Act.