Frank Cesario

The appellant and respondent had an extramarital affair resulting in two children.

In 1974, the appellant executed a release discharging the respondent from all claims in exchange for a lump sum.

Twenty-six years later, the appellant brought an action seeking rescission of the release, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision to strike the claim under Rule 21, finding that the appellant's lengthy delay in bringing the equitable claims constituted acquiescence, making the action certain to fail.

The appellant brought an action against the respondent, with whom she had a secret extra-marital affair for 14 years, claiming damages for failure to provide adequate child support.

The appellant had signed a release in 1974 for $27,500.

The motions judge struck out the appellant's claims under Rule 21.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellant's 26-year delay in seeking rescission of the release constituted acquiescence under the doctrine of laches, making her equitable claims certain to fail.

The adult appellants brought an action against the respondent, their alleged biological father, claiming damages for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment for failing to provide adequate child support during their youth.

The motions judge struck the statement of claim under Rule 21.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the claim was essentially one for retroactive child support which circumvented the comprehensive statutory scheme.

The court also held that on the facts pleaded, the respondent owed no fiduciary obligations to the appellants as he never assumed a parental role or exercised control over their lives.

A supplementary endorsement was issued to clarify the disposition of costs in the Divisional Court.

The court amended its previous reasons to provide the appellants with the option to have the costs assessed on a party and party basis within thirty days.

If the option is not exercised, the respondent is entitled to recover the $20,000 in costs fixed by the Divisional Court.

Appeal from dismissal of an application for judicial review challenging a university board resolution authorizing closure and sale of two downtown colleges as part of a capital development and financial restructuring strategy.

The majority held that the impugned decision concerned management, property, revenues, expenditures, and facilities within the Board's authority under the Trent University Act, and did not amount to educational policy requiring Senate concurrence.

The majority also held the faculty-member appellants lacked standing to seek judicial review, rejecting both personal and public interest standing arguments.

The appeal on the merits was dismissed, but the costs order below was varied to permit assessment of the party-and-party costs awarded by the Divisional Court if the appellants elected that course.

A dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding the closure decision engaged educational policy and required Senate approval.