Doug LaFramboise

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated in 2017 after a four-year marriage, leaving several financial issues to be resolved at trial.

The court determined that a purported mortgage and renovation loan from the husband's parents were actually gifts, meaning they could not be deducted from his net family property, resulting in an equalization payment of $326,211.50.

Additionally, the court imputed an annual income of $63,863 to the husband due to non-disclosure and creative accounting, ordering him to pay retroactive child support arrears of $27,198 and s. 7 expense arrears of $4,921.53.

The wife's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

On a post-trial distribution motion arising from a failed land development scheme, the court addressed competing claims between settling investors and investors who proceeded through trial and appeals.

The settling parties obtained judgment on their settlement agreements, but were denied equitable liens over preserved funds because their rights were contractual, the defendants were not shown to own the preserved funds, and equity favoured the trial parties who preserved assets and bore the burdens of the litigation.

The court also held that the trial parties lacked standing to raise limitation defences to enforcement of the settlements, and excluded a disputed email under settlement privilege.

The funds paid into court were ordered distributed pro rata among the trial parties, subject to specified limitations tied to claims against one defendant.

The appellants sought to overturn a summary judgment granted against them, which included full indemnity costs under a second mortgage, and the striking of their statement of defence and counterclaim without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants were liable under the mortgage, their pleadings were unparticularized, and that other outstanding claims did not justify delaying judgment.

The court also upheld the refusal to grant leave to amend due to the unintelligible nature of the pleadings and the appellants' failure to seek amendment or provide proposed amended pleadings.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel, Douglas LaFramboise, alleging a conflict of interest.

LaFramboise had previously represented the defendants (Rabba Foods) in an earlier personal injury action brought by the plaintiff, which is now the subject of the plaintiff's current negligence claim against the Alam defendants.

The court found that LaFramboise was a material witness to the communications and negotiations central to the current negligence claim, particularly regarding the costs the plaintiff incurred.

The court determined that LaFramboise's dual role as advocate and potential witness created an inherent conflict of interest, compromising the proper administration of justice.

The motion to remove LaFramboise as counsel was granted.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order annulling the bankruptcy of a company (1947755 Ontario Ltd.) on two grounds: insolvency and abuse of process.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the company's solvency.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's conclusion of abuse of process was supported by the evidence and was sufficient to justify the annulment, rendering the fresh evidence on solvency irrelevant to the outcome.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to find a person involved in the action in contempt.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the order appealed from was interlocutory, meaning it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which properly lies to the Divisional Court with leave.

Consequently, the appeal was transmitted to the Divisional Court.

The appellant, Leslie Rivas, appealed the dismissal of her claim for damages related to an unconventional property arrangement with the respondent, Michael Anobile.

Rivas had transferred her matrimonial home to Anobile, who held it in trust to secure better financing, allowing Rivas and her children to continue residing there.

The property was later sold to a third party.

Rivas alleged fraud and loss of equity.

The trial judge rejected her claim, making adverse credibility findings and concluding that while Anobile owed fiduciary duties, there was no breach, and no damages were suffered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including the appellant's consistent awareness and willing participation in the dealings.

This trial decision addresses a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

Franchisees sought rescission of their franchise agreements and damages, alleging the franchisor failed to provide a compliant disclosure document for a resale franchise.

The court found that the franchisor's involvement in the resale went beyond passive consent, triggering the disclosure obligation.

It determined that the disclosure provided was deficient, entitling the franchisees to rescission and damages.

The court also identified the franchisor's associates liable for damages and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful franchisees, citing the opposing counsel's conduct during trial.

The appellant's property was sold under power of sale.

She initiated an action alleging conspiracy to defraud and moved to set aside the sale, claiming fraud and improvidence.

The motion judge dismissed all claims except for an accounting by the mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no direct or circumstantial evidence of fraud, and that the sale was not improvident, especially considering the appellant's history of default and delay.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim after a mini-trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that the parties should bear their own costs or that she should receive a net costs award due to her costs of resisting a prior summary judgment motion.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting the defendant was entirely successful.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the defendant's failure to provide a proper accounting as a fiduciary and his deceptive conduct regarding property valuation.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $58,443.75.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of 12 years of condominium board minutes, the examination for discovery of a non-party former director, the return of renovation deposits, and answers to refusals from a co-defendant's examination.

The court dismissed the requests against the condominium, finding the plaintiff had not met the test under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party and had not established entitlement to further minutes or deposits.

The court partially granted the refusals motion, ordering the co-defendant to answer three specific questions.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding an overpayment for artwork, the plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation to be reprehensible, obstructive, and untruthful, including failing to provide documentary disclosure and taking unnecessary steps to delay the proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs in the amount of $33,903.00.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for fraudulent diversion of equity, loss of opportunity, and punitive damages arising from two transfers of her matrimonial home.

The parties had entered into an unwritten management plan where the defendant held the property in trust to secure better financing while the plaintiff continued to reside there.

The court found that a fiduciary relationship existed, but the defendant did not breach any fiduciary duty or fraudulently divert equity.

The defendant provided a full and proper accounting of the funds, and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendant for unjust enrichment (overpayment of $50,000 for artwork), punitive damages, and a constructive trust over a property purchased by the defendant with the overpaid funds.

The defendant denied the claims and challenged the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant's evidence incredible and fabricated, and that he was unjustly enriched.

Punitive damages were awarded due to the defendant's deceitful conduct and obstruction.

A constructive trust was imposed on the property due to the tracing of funds and the defendant's unlikelihood of voluntary payment.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to find the non-party Robert Bortolon in contempt of court, or alternatively, to expunge the initial statement of claim.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The alternative motion to expunge the statement of claim, which was opposed by the plaintiff, 1947755 Ontario Ltd., was also dismissed.

The court's decision was based on a combined evidentiary record from this motion and a related summary judgment motion, both addressing the issue of who was in control of the plaintiff corporation as of February 2017.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Shaw J. on September 14, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 all-inclusive to the responding party.

The appellant sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay and to extend time to perfect the appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion judge's decision to dismiss the appellant's action via reverse summary judgment, which sought to set aside a property transfer under power of sale due to alleged fraud and conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant's request, finding that despite some delay, she maintained an intention to appeal and had arguable grounds, particularly regarding the motion judge's assessment of "badges of fraud" in the context of a power of sale and the chargee's duties.

The court also clarified that a writ of possession requires a pre-existing order for possession, which the purchaser lacked.

The appellant appealed the terms of an order setting aside a default judgment, which required him to pay $52,000 into court and pay costs.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the terms did not finally dispose of the dispute between the parties and were therefore interlocutory orders from which no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent commenced an action against the appellants arising from mortgage investments.

After the appellants were noted in default and failed to appear on a motion for judgment, default judgment was granted in excess of $800,000.

The motion judge dismissed the appellants' motion to set aside the default judgment.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the motion judge's analysis on all grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellants failed to establish an arguable defence on the merits and that there was no evidence of prejudice beyond the axiomatic prejudice of having a judgment entered against them.

The court also noted that the appellants' allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias was recklessly made without evidentiary support.

Following a motion regarding the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, the parties were unable to settle the issue of costs.

The successful plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $7,506.35.

The court found the plaintiffs' claimed costs to be fair and reasonable, noting that the partial indemnity rate was reasonable and the total time spent was equivalent to that of the defendant's counsel.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs in the requested amount.