Ellen Mary Anderson

In an undefended family property proceeding, the court held that substituted service on a respondent residing in Brazil was sufficient despite the absence of a common binding international service convention between Canada and Brazil.

The applicant sought sole ownership of a jointly titled matrimonial-era home after paying the down payment, mortgage, insurance, taxes, and related debts for many years while receiving no support and facing the respondent's later demand for partition and sale.

The court held that Family Law Act equalization claims were statute-barred, but the Partition Act and equitable claims were available.

Applying unjust enrichment, proprietary estoppel, resulting trust, and vesting order principles, the court severed joint title and revested sole title in the applicant, imposed a restraining order, and awarded costs.

The respondent, Kenneth Leach, brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel, Ellen Anderson, from the record in ongoing family law litigation.

The grounds for removal were an alleged conflict of interest due to the applicant, Laura Leach, being employed by Ms. Anderson's firm, the possibility of Ms. Anderson becoming a witness regarding employment benefits (specifically, reduced legal fees), and an alleged champertous fee arrangement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no objective conflict of interest, no evidentiary basis to suggest Ms. Anderson would be a necessary witness, and no illegal contingency fee arrangement.

The court emphasized the high threshold for removing counsel and the objective standard for assessing conflicts.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of the Chief Building Official's refusal to issue a building permit for a single-family home.

The property had been inadvertently rezoned to permit such a home due to a clerical error, which the Town subsequently corrected with an amending by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Chief Building Official correctly considered the pending, more restrictive amending by-law as 'applicable law' under the Building Code Act when making her decision, as it would have retroactive effect once appeals were exhausted.