Gila Gabay

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs from the applicant following a consolidated application concerning beneficial ownership of a property, arguing he was the more successful party.

The applicant contended that both parties equally succeeded and lost, as neither established sole ownership and both were awarded an equal interest in the property, with no payments owed between them.

The court found that success was equally divided, as both parties failed in their symmetrical claims for sole ownership and related payments.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs of the consolidated application, and also declined to award costs for the costs submissions.

The applicant mother and her deceased daughter purchased a property as joint tenants in 1994.

The daughter lived in the property with her husband (the respondent) and children until her death in 2019.

Following the daughter's death, the mother claimed sole beneficial ownership by right of survivorship and sought occupation rent.

The respondent husband claimed the estate was the sole beneficial owner or, alternatively, a 50% owner as a tenant in common under s. 26(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that both the mother and daughter contributed to the purchase and neither established a resulting or constructive trust.

Because the property was a matrimonial home, the joint tenancy was deemed severed immediately before the daughter's death under s. 26(1) of the Family Law Act.

The property is held by the mother and the estate as tenants in common, each with a 50% interest.

Claims for unjust enrichment and occupation rent were dismissed.

This motion addressed three issues: the addition of parties to a trust dispute, the appropriate method of service for parties residing in Israel under the Hague Service Convention, and costs.

The court ordered the addition of the issue of Gershon Kaplan and Adina Gordon as party defendants, including the Children's Lawyer for minor/unascertained beneficiaries, finding their presence necessary for effective adjudication.

Regarding service abroad, the court held that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention authorizes service of an originating process by postal channels, rejecting the argument that "send" does not include "serve" and clarifying that prior case law suggesting otherwise (e.g., Wilson v. Servier Canada Inc.) is no longer good law.

The court directed service on the added parties in Israel by a method authorized by Article 10, including registered mail.

No costs were awarded due to the plaintiff's non-opposition on the first issue and the novelty of the second issue.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought an equalization payment, costs, and a divorce.

The respondent failed to participate, complicating the valuation of his Toronto Transit Commission pension.

After obtaining a court order dispensing with the respondent's signature and authorization from the Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the pension was valued.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $55,525.30 and costs of $7,500, to be satisfied entirely through a transfer from his pension pursuant to the Family Law Act and Pension Benefits Act.