Geraldine Acosta

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff to strike portions of the defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim in a property dispute.

The court found that much of the defendant’s pleading was irrelevant, scandalous, or pleaded evidence rather than material facts, and that it amounted to an abuse of process.

The court struck numerous paragraphs and ordered the defendant to serve and file a fresh, compliant pleading, with the process to be supervised by the court.

The plaintiff, D.H. Anderson Investments Inc., sought an interim and permanent injunction to remove the defendant, Wilma Castanares, from its property and to strike portions of her statement of defence and counterclaim.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case for ownership, that irreparable harm would result if relief was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court found no evidence of a gift or constructive trust in favour of the defendant and held that her occupation of the property was insufficient to establish any legal or beneficial interest.

The applicant mother sought a 50% trust interest in a family home held solely in the respondent father's name, following their divorce, reconciliation, and subsequent separation.

The home was purchased using significant funds gifted by the maternal grandmother.

The father argued the funds were a gift to him as compensation for reconciling.

The court rejected the father's argument, finding the funds were gifted to the mother.

The court held that the father was unjustly enriched by the mother's financial and non-financial contributions during their joint family venture.

The mother was awarded a 50% constructive trust interest in the home, valued at $487,608, plus $88,000 in costs.

The father's request to extend the limitation period for an equalization claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after being the more successful party at trial regarding property ownership and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendant argued for mixed results and that the plaintiff's offers were not more favourable.

The court found the plaintiff was the more successful party but noted mixed results and that the plaintiff's offers did not meet the Rule 49 threshold for substantial indemnity.

The court also considered the defendant's unreasonable conduct regarding the property listing.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, with a reduction for mixed results, totaling $17,573.05, payable from the defendant's share of the property sale proceeds.

The plaintiff and defendant, mother and daughter, were joint registered owners of a residential property.

After their relationship broke down, the plaintiff sought an order for the sale of the property and equal division of proceeds.

The defendant claimed sole beneficial ownership based on resulting trust, arguing the plaintiff was merely a co-signor, or alternatively claimed unjust enrichment for unequal contributions.

The court found the plaintiff was a true joint legal and beneficial owner, having contributed to the down payment and assumed mortgage liability.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding juristic reason for any unequal contributions based on their shared living arrangements and agreements.

The property was ordered sold with proceeds divided equally, subject to specific accounting adjustments for joint debts.