Jessica Ann Fiore

The court considered whether Brian Buday was gifted a property by his late father, Paul Buday, despite the absence of formal transfer documentation.

The court reviewed the evidence of improvements made by Brian Buday, the intentions of Paul Buday, and the positions of other interested parties, including Glen Buday and government respondents with tax claims.

Applying the law of inter vivos gifts and the presumption of resulting trust, the court found that the property was indeed gifted to Brian Buday in 1989 and ordered that it be vested in his name.

The court dismissed Mijanur Rahman's application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application sought orders reinstating and renewing various financial licenses and waiving renewal costs, but the court found that such relief was not available by application to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court held that the application lacked legal merit, was not properly brought under the cited rules or statutes, and would inevitably fail.

The decision clarifies the robust application of Rule 2.1 to prevent clearly unmeritorious proceedings from consuming judicial resources.

The court considered a motion under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an application as frivolous and vexatious.

The registrar referred the matter to the judge following a request from counsel for FP Canada.

The court ordered that the applicant be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions before any dismissal, stayed the application pending the written hearing, and directed the registrar regarding service and filings.

The judge remained seized of the matter.

Mary Aquino brought a motion for a garnishment hearing under Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary garnishment letters issued by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister had assessed Aquino for her common law spouse's pre-existing unpaid tax debt under the Retail Sales Tax Act (RSTA) and subsequently issued garnishment letters against her commissions and wages.

The court dismissed Aquino's motion, holding that Rule 60.08(16) does not apply to the Minister's garnishment letters issued under section 36 of the RSTA, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

The appellant challenged an assessment under the Land Transfer Tax Act that included the value of nursing home licences in the “value of consideration” for land transfer tax purposes following the purchase of a licensed nursing home.

The appellant argued that the licences were personal property and their assignment was not a conveyance of land.

The court held that the statutory definition of “value of consideration” includes monetary benefits connected to the conveyance of land.

Because the licences were integral to the purchase and operation of the nursing home and formed part of the overall transaction, their value was sufficiently connected to the conveyance.

The assessment including the licence value in the taxable consideration was therefore upheld.

The successful appellants sought costs following summary judgment motions in land transfer tax appeals.

They requested over $260,000 and argued that costs should also include work performed for additional related appeals and disputes that had been held in abeyance, as well as elevated costs based on a purported Rule 49 settlement offer.

The court declined to award costs for the additional appeals and related disputes because they were not before the court and there was no evidentiary basis to assess the work performed.

The court also held that the settlement proposal was not a valid Rule 49 offer because it addressed matters beyond the proceedings before the court and therefore did not justify elevated costs.

The parties were directed to attempt to agree on the remaining costs or provide further submissions limited to the four appeals heard.