David Mario Farmani

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking orders authorizing a receiver to take possession of a residential property, evict occupants, and secure the property following findings of fraud in earlier proceedings.

A responding party brought cross-motions seeking a declaration that the property constituted a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and requesting related relief to prevent enforcement against the property.

The court held that the transfer of the property to the responding party had already been determined at trial to be a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors, and that the responding party could not reopen factual issues after declining to testify or adduce evidence at trial.

The court further found that the responding party had consented to the mortgage transactions and that the Family Law Act did not protect the property from the plaintiffs’ tracing remedies arising from fraudulently obtained funds.

The motion was granted and the cross-motions were dismissed.

Following reasons for judgment in three related proceedings involving family and civil claims concerning transfers of funds and marital issues, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought recovery of substantial legal fees incurred across the proceedings.

The court considered proportionality, reasonableness, the complexity of the litigation, and conduct of the parties during the proceedings, including disclosure issues.

Exercising its discretion, the court fixed a global costs award inclusive of disbursements and taxes for all three proceedings.

An elderly man married his much younger housekeeper, who subsequently pressured him into transferring his home to her son while retaining a life interest.

The plaintiff sought to set aside the transfer, while the defendants claimed a $120,000 loan, equalization of net family property, and quantum meruit for services rendered.

The court set aside the transfer, finding it was procured through undue influence and unconscionability.

The court dismissed the defendants' claims for the loan, equalization, and quantum meruit, finding the property was never a matrimonial home and the housekeeper's unclean hands barred equitable relief.

A divorce was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to stay pending summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, arguing that the motions were premature and that discovery was necessary to develop a full evidentiary record capable of satisfying the “full appreciation” test.

The defendants opposed the stay and argued that the issues—primarily a limitation period defence under the Limitations Act, 2002—were appropriate for determination on summary judgment.

The court reviewed the post‑2010 summary judgment framework articulated by the Court of Appeal and considered whether the evidentiary record required the procedural advantages of a trial.

The court found that the dispute was largely document‑driven, involved limited witnesses, and centred on whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the loss of her beneficial interest in property by at least April 2009.

The court held that the matter was suitable for summary judgment and dismissed the motion to stay.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement arising from a dispute between joint investors in a Toronto property held partly in trust.

The moving party argued that email exchanges and communications between the parties and their lawyers confirmed an agreement for the purchase of the respondent’s interest for $97,000.

The court held that the correspondence demonstrated ongoing negotiations rather than a concluded agreement and that the parties intended any settlement to be formalized through a written agreement of purchase and sale.

Essential terms—including refinancing the mortgage, discharge of liability, and a closing date—remained unresolved.

The court concluded that no binding settlement had been reached and dismissed the motion.