Jide Oladejo

The court issued a costs endorsement for two consolidated applications concerning beneficial ownership of a property.

The initial applications sought declarations of 100% ownership by each party.

The court found a 75.2% interest for Gandhi and 24.8% for Fajebe, ordering the property sold.

Neither party's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 costs consequences as they contained non-ordered terms or were not easily comparable to the judgment.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, including delays and abandoned claims, the court found both parties largely failed to meet their onuses.

Despite Gandhi being "less unsuccessful," the court ordered no costs, finding divided success and no operative offer to settle.

This consolidated trial addressed the ownership of a property, with both parties seeking declarations of ownership.

Fajebe claimed Gandhi held the property in trust for him after a sale, while Gandhi asserted an outright sale with a lease-back arrangement.

The court rejected the express trust claim but found an implied trust based on Fajebe's initial equity contribution.

The property was ordered to be sold, with net proceeds divided 75.2% to Gandhi and 24.8% to Fajebe, reflecting their proven contributions.

The court also found the lease unenforceable and ordered Fajebe to make monthly payments from the trial start until the property's sale.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought possession of mortgaged premises and requested interim terms at a case conference pending the return of the main motion.

The defendants contested the court's jurisdiction to make interim orders at a scheduling case conference.

The court held that Rule 50.13(6) and Rule 1.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a judge to make interlocutory orders on terms at a case conference, provided notice is given.

The matter was adjourned to a brief hearing to determine the interim terms.

The applicant's motion for an interim order to sell a jointly owned home was previously dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $9,166, while the applicant argued no costs should be payable.

Applying the costs framework under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent was successful and entitled to costs.

The court fixed the costs at $5,000, noting the applicant's motion was not unreasonable and the respondent's bill included work unrelated to the motion.

The applicant sought an order for the immediate sale of a jointly owned home, division of net proceeds, and agreement on a listing agent.

The respondent opposed, arguing that a sale would cause hardship amounting to oppression, particularly for their 14-year-old son, and that the applicant had not contributed significantly to the home since separation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had demonstrated sufficient reason to refuse the sale based on oppression, and ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite the resolution of the property dispute.

The applicant mother, residing in Oregon with a 10-year-old child, sought child support from the respondent father under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, requesting retroactive support to July 2009.

The respondent claimed inability to pay.

The court determined the respondent's income at $13,700 annually based on recent employment as a security guard and ODSP benefits.

The court found the respondent had not been intentionally unemployed or underemployed, having serious medical limitations including Goldenhar Syndrome with severe facial deformities, profound hearing loss, and vision impairment.

The court dismissed the claim for retroactive support, finding no reasonable excuse for the six-year delay in bringing the application and that the respondent had not engaged in blameworthy conduct.

A prospective support order was issued effective January 1, 2016.

In an uncontested family law trial where the applicant husband failed to appear, the court determined equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs.

The parties were married for two years.

The respondent wife sought equalization of the matrimonial home, contents, and vehicles, which the court granted, ordering the applicant to pay $95,855.79.

The respondent also sought an extension of spousal support for four more years to complete language and paralegal training.

The court declined, finding the requested duration excessive for a short marriage, and terminated support effective May 1, 2016.

The respondent was awarded $12,000 in costs on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property remained in full force and effect.

The respondent argued that the agreement, which was tied to a lease, had been terminated due to chronically late rental payments and other alleged breaches, relying on the principle that full performance was a condition precedent to exercising the option to purchase.

The court found that the principles of fundamental and anticipatory breach applied, rather than strict condition precedent.

The court concluded that the respondent failed to properly terminate the agreement within a reasonable time and granted the declaration that the purchase and sale agreement remained valid.

The applicant sought sole custody of the youngest child, child support for four children pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, and retroactive child support from January 1, 2010.

The respondent sought joint custody and opposed the child support order.

The court determined the parties' incomes, assessed the respondent's claim of undue hardship under section 10 of the Guidelines, and found that while undue hardship existed, the respondent's household had a higher standard of living than the applicant's, precluding a reduction in support.

The court ordered ongoing child support with an offset arrangement and made a retroactive order from January 1, 2012.

Section 7 expenses were ordered only for the youngest child.