Daniel C. Sirois

This case involved a divorce and the equalization of net family property after a 24-year marriage.

The primary dispute centered on the valuation of the applicant's paralegal professional corporation, specifically whether the value of his client contingency contracts for WSIB claims should be included as a corporate asset for equalization purposes.

The court determined that these contracts constituted "property" under the Family Law Act and should be included in the valuation.

The court also addressed the appropriate discount rates for valuing these contracts, the treatment of real properties, a numbered company, and various debts.

The court declined to order a transfer of shares for tax planning reasons, emphasizing that Section 9(1) of the Family Law Act is not for tax optimization but for ensuring payment where there is a proven risk of non-compliance.

This decision addresses the costs arising from two applications concerning the care and property management of Irene Deshevy, an incapable 90-year-old.

Brenda Deshevy initiated an application seeking to remove Linda Deshevy as attorney and be appointed guardian.

Linda Deshevy, Irene's appointed attorney, filed a responding application.

Brenda subsequently withdrew her application after receiving a medical report clarifying Irene's extensive care needs and her contentment with Linda's care.

The court found Brenda's application was brought in good faith due to a lack of communication and a misunderstanding of Irene's wishes, rather than misconduct.

Considering Brenda's limited income and the mixed responsibility for the litigation, the court awarded Linda Deshevy $4,000 in all-inclusive costs from Brenda.

Irene Deshevy's legal fees were ordered to be paid from her estate.

The defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff for $6,097.25 for unpaid invoices.

Neither party led any evidence or made any submissions regarding the counterclaim during the trial.

As a result, the court issued supplementary reasons dismissing the counterclaim.

The plaintiff general contractor sued the defendant flooring subcontractor for breach of contract after the installed resilient flooring exhibited loose, lifting, and telegraphing tiles.

The plaintiff replaced the defective flooring and sought to recover the costs.

The defendant argued the issues were caused by excess moisture in the concrete slab, for which it had obtained a liability release.

The court found that the defendant failed to properly prepare the concrete substrate in accordance with the contract specifications, causing the delamination and telegraphing.

The plaintiff was awarded the replacement costs, less the amount claimed for profit.

Following a trial where the jury found no negligence or liability against the defendants, the defendant Cedar Fair Entertainment Company sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Cedar Fair's Rule 49 offer to settle.

Despite Cedar Fair's complete success at trial, the court applied the principle of proportionality, finding the requested costs disproportionate to the case's complexity and the amount reasonably at issue.

A global costs award of $45,000, all-inclusive, was made in favour of Cedar Fair, to be paid by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action, which arose from a real estate transaction and a forfeited deposit, was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to set it down for trial by a deadline established at a status hearing.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, did not move expeditiously to set aside the order, and could not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant husband brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules to change an interim consent order that required him to pay $800 per month in spousal support.

He argued the order contained a 'calculation mistake' because the amount fell outside the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range based on his subsequent calculations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no mutual mistake or misapprehension between the parties at the time of the consent order.

The court noted that the agreed-upon amount was within the SSAG range and that interim orders are meant to provide a reasonably acceptable temporary solution until trial.

The defendant brought a motion to amend its third-party claim to substitute a sole proprietorship operating as a janitorial service in place of a corporation incorrectly named as a third party.

The court held that the proposed amendment was not merely a correction of a misnomer but the addition of a new legal entity.

The moving party had been put on notice of the error years earlier but failed to act diligently before the limitation period expired.

The proposed sole proprietor had since died, depriving the defence of potential evidence and causing prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

The court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to refuse the amendment.

A corporate plaintiff sought recovery of $96,500 allegedly transferred without authorization from its account to another corporation’s account to cover overdrafts.

The defendant credit union maintained the transfers were authorized by the principal of the plaintiff company and documented through telephone instructions and account records.

The court found that the transfers were authorized and that the plaintiff had received monthly statements and supporting documentation reflecting the transactions without timely objection.

In any event, the claim was barred both by the contractual verification provision requiring disputes within 30 days and by the applicable six‑year limitation period.

The action was dismissed.