Eduardo F. Lam

The applicant wife sought an order striking the respondent husband's pleadings or compelling disclosure and an expert meeting.

The respondent husband sought to vary a spousal support order and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the wife's request to strike pleadings and her expert meeting request, but ordered reciprocal questioning with experts present.

The husband's motion to vary spousal support was dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or compelling evidence to warrant a variation of the temporary order.

The matrimonial home sale was resolved by consent.

The court declined to award costs to the wife, finding her rejection of expert collaboration unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding $1,070,000 to the respondent in a dispute over ownership of a commercial property on Parliament Street in Toronto.

The trial judge found that the father had gifted the property to his daughter, and therefore the proceeds of sale belonged to her.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings, finding they met the three criteria for a valid gift and were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff corporation, solely owned by the daughter of the deceased, brought an action against the deceased's estate to recover $1,070,000.

The deceased had incorporated the plaintiff to purchase a commercial property for his daughter.

After the property was sold for a profit, the deceased withdrew the funds from the plaintiff's bank account for his own use.

The estate argued the plaintiff was a bare trustee and the deceased was the beneficial owner.

The court found no documentary or credible testimonial evidence of a trust, concluding the corporation and its funds belonged entirely to the daughter.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the full amount taken.

The applicants, owners of residential and additional parking units in a condominium, brought an application disputing the allocation of common expenses to their parking units and seeking access to financial information.

The court found that a previous order had already definitively ruled that parking units are subject to common expenses.

On the merits, the court interpreted the condominium's Declaration to clearly mandate common expense contributions from parking unit owners, as these are separate units.

The application was dismissed, and costs were fixed against the applicants, acknowledging some divided success on information access but the respondents' overall success on the main legal issue.