Mr. Graham

The applicants brought a motion seeking leave to file seven reply affidavits in an application for judicial review concerning a decision to allow increased sulphur production at a Suncor refinery.

The respondents objected to the vast majority of the proposed reply evidence on grounds including improper case-splitting, irrelevance, and that the evidence was available earlier.

The court held that a less strict standard for reply evidence applies on an application prior to cross-examinations than at trial.

Applying this standard, the court permitted most of the reply evidence, striking only portions that were purely confirmatory, raised new issues that should have been in the main case, or repeated earlier evidence verbatim.

The respondent husband made claims against his deceased wife's estate for contributions made to a duplex owned by the wife.

The parties had an oral agreement that the husband would acquire a half interest upon paying half the purchase price through monthly installments, but the wife died before payments were completed.

The husband also performed extensive maintenance and renovations.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the estate's appeal, holding that while the Family Law Reform Act did not apply to deceased spouses, the husband was entitled to the return of his payments in quasi-contract and compensation for his services based on the doctrine of constructive trust and unjust enrichment.