Ginger Warner

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, sought dependant's relief from his estate.

The deceased's two sons also brought claims asserting ownership over two properties, arguing they were not estate assets.

The court found that one property was held in trust for one son and was not an estate asset, while the other property belonged to the estate as the other son failed to establish a constructive trust, resulting trust, or valid gift.

Regarding dependant's relief, the court applied the four-part test under the Succession Law Reform Act, balancing the applicant's needs against the beneficiaries' interests.

The court ordered a lump sum for past support and ongoing monthly support to be funded by an annuity with a reversionary interest to the estate.

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendants were largely successful, the parties settled the action and submitted a joint costs brief.

The defendants sought $32,014.17 in partial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff argued for $15,000, noting the defendants spent twice as much time and charged three times as much as the plaintiff.

The court found the defendants' time investment was generally reasonable given what was at stake, but acknowledged some overkill, ultimately fixing costs at $27,500 all-inclusive.

The moving party, a residential property owner, brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Lien Act to discharge two construction liens registered against her property by a subcontractor and an equipment rental company.

The moving party argued the liens were out of time under the 45-day preservation deadline of the old Construction Lien Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding triable issues regarding whether the old Act or the new Construction Act (with a 60-day deadline) applied, and when the lien claimants last supplied services and materials to the improvement.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for oppression.

The plaintiffs, former minority shareholders, alleged that the defendants misappropriated corporate assets and sold shares below true value.

The court struck the claims against the Murison Family Trust with leave to amend, as a trust is not a legal entity.

The claims against 2123388 Ontario Inc. and Exia Biomedical Inc. were struck without leave to amend, as 212 lacked the capacity to oppress and the claims against Exia belonged to the corporation and required a derivative action.

The claim against Obotics Inc. was struck with leave to amend, as no material facts of wrongful conduct were pleaded.

The appellants, Ontario farmers, purchased agricultural machinery from the respondents, whose business is located in Quebec near the Ontario border.

The appellants sued the respondents in Ontario and served the statement of claim outside Ontario.

The motion judge set aside the service and stayed the proceeding, finding that the respondents did not carry on business in Ontario and therefore Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence showed the respondents solicited sales in Ontario, derived 40% of their sales revenue from Ontario, operated a mobile repair service in Ontario, and maintained a GPS system in Ontario to support the machinery sold there.

Therefore, the respondents carried on business in Ontario, establishing a real and substantial connection, and Ontario courts have jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Dias, brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to substitute David Kealey for "John Doe" and to plead particulars of negligence.

Kealey opposed, arguing the proposed amendments introduced a new, time-barred cause of action and that the original pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against him.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test for striking pleadings, finding that the original statement of claim, read generously, contained a sufficient factual matrix to support a negligence claim against Kealey, particularly given allegations of his intoxication leading to injury.

The court dismissed Kealey's motion to strike and granted Dias's motion to amend.

The plaintiff, Daly Square Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action seeking approximately $130,000 plus interest and possession of the mortgaged property, and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants, 1786097 Ontario Inc. and Camille Mikhael, opposed, arguing for equitable set-off and that their $500,000 counterclaim for property damage was not statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on both its claim and the defendants' counterclaim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding equitable set-off and the limitation period for the counterclaim.

The court also ruled that the defendants were not entitled to legal set-off.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on a mortgage and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim as statute-barred.

However, the plaintiff failed to include the request to dismiss the counterclaim in its notice of motion.

Citing the need for active case management and proportionality, the court declined to dismiss the limitation period argument outright and instead ordered a timetable allowing the plaintiff to amend its notice of motion and the defendants to file responding evidence.

The appellants, minority shareholders in a family lumber business, appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy and winding-up order under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to address the winding-up provisions, taking judicial notice of political news, and finding parts of their claim statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the criteria for winding-up were the same as for oppression, which the judge correctly found was not established.

The court also upheld the judge's findings that the appellant had no reasonable expectation of becoming an officer or receiving dividends given the company's conservative management and industry challenges.

The mother brought motions for contempt against the father for failing to facilitate supervised access as ordered, and for joint custody with increased access.

The father cross-moved to vary the access order, citing concerns over the mother's past drug addiction and the child's anxiety.

The court found the father in contempt for deliberately disobeying the clear terms of the access order, but suspended any penalty to allow him to purge the contempt by complying with a new schedule.

The court deferred the issue of custody to trial but ordered a gradually increasing access schedule for the mother, transitioning to unsupervised and overnight access, conditional on her providing random negative drug tests.