3 total
Unjust enrichment claim dismissed; joint property sale proceeds divided equally after accounting for expenses and occupational rent.
The applicant and respondent purchased a house together as tenants in common.
The respondent moved out shortly after, and the applicant paid all mortgage and maintenance fees while living in the property rent-free.
After the property was sold, the applicant sought a declaration of unjust enrichment and a constructive trust, claiming 90% of the net proceeds.
The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the applicant suffered no deprivation and there was a juristic reason to enforce their agreement to split proceeds equally.
The court ordered the net proceeds to be divided equally after accounting for deductions, including the applicant's operating expenses and the respondent's entitlement to occupational rent.
Motion to freeze property sale proceeds dismissed as applicant failed to show irreparable harm.
The applicant and respondent jointly owned a property that was sold.
The applicant sought an interim injunction, payment into court under Rule 45.02, or an order under the Partition Act to freeze the respondent's share of the net sale proceeds, claiming she owed him for disproportionate carrying costs.
The respondent brought a cross-motion to release her half of the proceeds to close on a new property.
The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding he failed to establish irreparable harm or a right to a specific fund, and that the balance of convenience heavily favoured the respondent.
The respondent's cross-motion was granted.
Court orders interim nesting arrangement pending investigation and case conference.
Emergency family law motions were brought by separated spouses concerning temporary care of a young child and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home prior to a case conference.
The court considered competing allegations of abuse, the involvement of the local children’s aid society, and the parties’ limited financial circumstances.
Finding the evidence insufficient to grant temporary custody or exclusive possession to either party, the court ordered an interim week‑about “nesting” arrangement in which the child would remain in the matrimonial home while the parents alternated residence.
The court also directed the parties to mediation and scheduled a case conference.
Issues of support and household expenses were deferred pending financial disclosure.
