Doi

The applicants, elderly parents, sought an order vesting title to a residential property registered in their daughter's name, claiming a purchase money resulting trust, bare trust, or constructive trust.

The property was purchased by their son, who later gifted it to the daughter.

The parents claimed they had paid for a previous property whose sale proceeds funded the current one, and that they contributed to upkeep.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the parents contributed to the purchase price, no written agreement or certainty of intention for a bare trust, and no unjust enrichment to support a constructive trust, as the parents had lived rent-free in the properties for years.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and its personal guarantor after the borrower defaulted on a $100,000 loan.

The defendants argued the bank breached its duty of good faith and fiduciary duty by failing to explain the loan terms and by calling the loan despite the borrower bringing arrears current.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no fiduciary duty existed, the bank acted reasonably and in good faith in exercising its contractual rights after reviewing the borrower's financial disclosure, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff, a contractor, sued the defendant homeowner for unpaid contracting fees of $35,729.63 for building a log home.

The defendant counterclaimed against the contractor and the log home kit supplier for $124,203.30, alleging breach of contract due to delays and construction deficiencies.

The court found that the defendant homeowner, who acted as his own general contractor, was responsible for the delays and had wrongfully repudiated the contract by locking the contractor out of the site.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for the unpaid balance and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police executed a drug search warrant at a residence and found him trying to flee through a basement window.

A loaded handgun was found hidden in a sofa in the basement.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's utterance to police that 'if you find something it's all mine'.

The trial judge dismissed the defence's motion for a directed verdict but ultimately acquitted the accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the hidden handgun.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Florida.

The respondent father had retained the child in Ontario following a parenting visit and claimed the child objected to returning.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Florida and wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The court declined to apply the Article 13 objection exception, finding that the child's sudden refusal to return was the result of parental alienation and undue influence by the father.

The motion for the child's return was granted.

The plaintiffs invested in a land development project in Brampton promoted by the defendants.

The defendants promised to develop the property into a subdivision and deliver serviced lots to the investors.

However, the defendants never developed the property, secretly used project funds to pay for their personal expenses, and ultimately sold the undeveloped land to a third-party developer for over $15.3 million.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the actions, finding that the defendants had engaged in a deliberate pattern of deceptive and self-serving misconduct.

The court imposed a constructive trust and awarded the plaintiffs a pro-rata share of the sale proceeds based on their capital contributions, totaling over $10.6 million, plus $150,000 in punitive damages.

The applicant brought an application to quash a resolution and by-law passed by the respondent municipality to conditionally appoint a member to fill a potential council vacancy.

The vacancy was anticipated because a sitting councillor was running in a provincial election.

The court found that the Municipal Act requires a vacancy to actually exist and be declared before an appointment can be made.

The resolution and by-law were quashed for illegality as they were passed without jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought a motion to conditionally strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The trial had previously resulted in a mistrial in January 2020 due to the plaintiff's health crisis.

Citing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting backlog of civil jury trials in Brampton, the plaintiff argued that further delay would cause prejudice, particularly regarding income loss limits and increasing statutory deductibles under the Insurance Act.

The court granted the motion, conditionally striking the jury notice to allow the trial to proceed before a judge alone if a jury trial could not be accommodated during the January 2022 sittings.

The father brought a motion to change a consent final order to seek primary residence and sole decision-making for the parties' younger child, alleging the mother had alienated the children from him.

The mother opposed the motion and sought sole decision-making.

The court held a voir dire and admitted the children's out-of-court statements to an OCL clinician and a reunification therapist under the principled approach to hearsay and the state of mind exception, rejecting a claim of case-by-case therapy privilege.

The court found no parental alienation by the mother.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, finding that the father had fabricated email evidence to mislead the court and that the child's strong preference was to reside with the mother and have parenting time at her discretion.

The defendant moved for the release of proceeds held in trust from the sale of her home.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on an ex parte motion, claiming an interest in the property based on an alleged agreement of purchase and sale.

The property was subsequently sold by a mortgage lender after the defendant defaulted, and the net proceeds were held in trust.

The court found that the CPL should have been discharged due to the plaintiffs' failure to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion and because equitable factors favoured discharge.

The court also declined to order the funds held as security under Rule 45.02, noting the plaintiffs' claim was ultimately for damages.

The motion was granted and the funds were ordered released to the defendant.

In a high-conflict family proceeding involving allegations of child abuse, the respondent father brought a motion for the disclosure of various non-party records, including child protection files, medical and counselling records, and the Crown brief from his ongoing criminal prosecution.

The court applied the Wigmore test and Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The court ordered the disclosure of the child protection investigation file and the mother's mental health records, finding them relevant to the parenting issues.

However, the court dismissed the request for the children's therapeutic and medical records, finding they were protected by case-by-case privilege.

The court also declined to order the disclosure of the Crown brief to protect the integrity of the ongoing criminal prosecution.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and noting in default obtained by the plaintiff law firm in an action for unpaid legal fees.

The defendant had inadvertently miscalculated the deadline to file his defence and was noted in default without notice.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the delay, and raised an arguable defence regarding the quality and authorization of the legal work.

The court also noted that the plaintiff's failure to give notice before noting the defendant in default was inconsonant with principles of professionalism.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was permitted to deliver his statement of defence and counterclaim.

The applicant sought a final order for the disposition of sale proceeds of a jointly held home, spousal support, and costs.

The matter proceeded to an uncontested trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's contributions to a hydro bill and second mortgage funds, and ordered reimbursement.

The court also imputed income to both parties and awarded the applicant spousal support of $589 per month for five years.

Due to the respondent's bad faith conduct, including defying court orders and abandoning the applicant's belongings, costs of $18,000 were awarded to the applicant on an elevated scale.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to file a late responding affidavit to the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, after the deadline in a peremptory timetable order had passed.

The defendant also sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's affiants, which the plaintiff opposed on the basis that the defendant had not filed an affidavit.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice favoured allowing the late affidavit to ensure the case was decided on its merits.

The court also held that under Rule 39.02(1), a party is not required to serve an affidavit as a condition precedent to cross-examining an adverse party's affiant.

The plaintiff sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property based on an alleged joint venture agreement.

The defendants opposed, claiming the agreement was fabricated and signatures were forged, and brought a cross-motion to discharge a caution the plaintiff had registered on title.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land and that the equities, including the uniqueness of the property, favoured granting the CPL.

However, the court granted the cross-motion to discharge the caution because it had been registered indefinitely in violation of the Land Titles Act requirements.

The applicant brought a motion to have the net sale proceeds of two cottage properties paid to the Family Responsibility Office to satisfy approximately $480,000 in spousal support and costs arrears owed by the respondent.

One property was owned by the respondent personally, and the other by his closely-held corporation.

The court found that the respondent had not established a prima facie case to vary his support obligations and ordered the proceeds of his personal property released.

Furthermore, the court applied the test for piercing the corporate veil, finding that the respondent exercised complete control over the corporation and used it to unjustly deprive the applicant of her support entitlements.

The court ordered the proceeds from both properties to be paid to the applicant.

The moving defendants (sellers) sought summary judgment and forfeiture of a $20,000 deposit after the responding plaintiffs (buyers) failed to close a real estate transaction.

The buyers claimed they were entitled to rescind the agreement due to an incorrect square footage in the MLS listing and concerns over an open building permit.

The court found that the buyers had viewed the property and were aware of its size, meaning the MLS error was not a material misrepresentation.

Furthermore, the buyers failed to raise a valid objection to title regarding the building permit.

The court granted summary judgment to the sellers, finding the buyers defaulted on the transaction, and ordered the deposit forfeited as relief from forfeiture was not warranted.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident personal injury action moved to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants cross-moved to adjourn the trial to conduct defence medical examinations and obtain expert reports.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion and struck the jury notice, finding that the plaintiff would suffer non-compensable prejudice from trial delay due to statutory deductibles and income loss limits under the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, holding that their lack of trial readiness was due to their own failure to diligently seek medical examinations and expert reports.

The moving defendant, the Estate of Alex Bartholomey, brought motions to appoint a litigation administrator and to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff landlords for commercial lease arrears.

The court appointed the deceased's daughter as litigation administrator, making her jointly and severally liable for costs.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the default judgment, validating the plaintiffs' order to continue nunc pro tunc and finding that the Estate failed to provide a plausible excuse for the default or an arguable defence on the merits regarding the deceased's liability under an indemnity agreement.

The moving defendant sought to set aside four default judgments obtained against him in 2011.

He argued that he was unaware of the defaults because his former lawyer failed to defend him or notify him of the proceedings, and improperly withdrew from the record.

The court applied the Mountain View factors and found that the defendant moved promptly upon discovering the judgments, had a plausible explanation for the default due to his counsel's inadvertence, and presented an arguable defence on the merits.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgments and notings of default.