Doug Laframboise

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion without notice seeking a Certificate of Pending Litigation over residential property owned by the defendants, asserting a resulting trust arising from an alleged $130,000 loan used to purchase the property.

The property was under agreement of purchase and sale with closing imminent, and the plaintiff argued a CPL was necessary to protect his interest before proceeds were dissipated in the defendants’ separation.

The court held that ex parte relief of this nature requires extraordinary urgency and careful scrutiny, particularly where it would effectively operate as an injunction affecting third-party purchasers.

The evidentiary record contained no documentation of the alleged loan or indebtedness.

The court declined to issue a CPL without notice and adjourned the motion to permit service on the defendants and further evidence.

The responding spouse brought a long motion seeking temporary spousal support, an extension of time to advance an equalization claim, and financial disclosure, arising from an interim separation agreement executed without legal advice or financial disclosure.

The court held that the agreement expressly contemplated future determination of equalization and spousal support and therefore did not bar the claims.

Applying s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, the court extended the limitation period to permit the equalization claim to proceed, finding prima facie entitlement, delay incurred in good faith, and no substantial prejudice.

The court also ordered extensive financial disclosure and interim spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using the best available income evidence.

The applicant towing company brought a motion seeking to prevent a police services board from executing a towing services contract with another bidder following a request for quotation process.

The board had disqualified the applicant’s bid as non‑compliant for failing to provide required documentation including a letter of credit in the bidder’s name, enforceable leases for equipment and pound facilities, and proper licences.

The court found that the deficiencies were substantial and that the board acted properly and consistently in enforcing the mandatory pre‑conditions in the procurement process.

As the bid was correctly deemed non‑compliant, the applicant lacked standing to challenge the contract award.