Garth B. Allan

The applicants successfully defended a Small Claims Court action regarding a real estate misrepresentation but were awarded no costs by the Deputy Judge, who provided no reasons for the costs decision.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the costs order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that although the absence of reasons was unhelpful, the record demonstrated a sound basis for the Deputy Judge's exercise of discretion, as the applicants had committed a misrepresentation even though the plaintiff failed to prove reliance.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for $13,000 based on an alleged oral agreement.

The appeal was based on the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge's brief reasons were merely statements of conclusion without analysis of the credibility issues or the evidence, including transcripts of recorded telephone conversations.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

A common-law spouse applied for dependant’s relief under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act and sought a vesting order over the deceased’s home based on a constructive trust.

The application was brought against the deceased’s children as beneficiaries of an intestate estate.

The court held that claims for dependant’s support must be brought against the estate, through its executor or administrator, rather than directly against beneficiaries.

Because no estate administrator had been appointed and the estate itself was not named as a respondent, the proceeding was procedurally defective.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to reapply once an administrator of the estate was appointed.