John W. Bruggeman

In a spousal support review trial following a 24-year marriage, the court found the respondent entitled to ongoing support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, noting her role in childcare and the applicant's career, as well as her ongoing mental health challenges.

The court determined the applicant's income by rejecting the inclusion of previously vested stock options but adding back certain business expenses, setting his ongoing income at a three-year average of $339,333.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent due to her failure to meaningfully retrain or seek employment, while declining to require her to liquidate her home to generate income.

Indefinite spousal support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range, and the applicant was credited for an overpayment of child support.

The defendant bank moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by a former lawyer seeking $10,000,000 in damages for the revocation of his law license and criminal conviction for fraud.

The plaintiff alleged that the bank's negligent administration of his trust account, specifically double-debiting certified cheques, caused a shortfall that prevented a real estate transaction from closing, which triggered a Law Society investigation and ultimately led to his license revocation and criminal conviction.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff's license revocation and conviction were caused by his own misappropriation of trust funds, not by the bank's double-debits.

The investigation was initiated by a complaint from the plaintiff's former law clerk regarding unauthorized transfers from the trust account, not by the failed transaction.

The court found no causal link between the bank's conduct and the damages claimed.

The applicants, private lenders, sought rectification of the land register or re-registration of two discharged second mortgages after a failed real estate closing.

The court found that the applicants had received full payment and voluntarily returned the discharge funds to trust, and that there was no basis in law or equity to grant rectification or re-registration.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent husband, M.D., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in a family law proceeding, which the applicant wife, N.C., disputed.

The court examined whether a binding agreement had been reached, specifically focusing on two essential terms: an indemnity clause and a $350,000 credit clause.

The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the question of whether a binding deal existed, concluding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms from the perspective of a reasonable observer.

Consequently, the husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

In this family trial, the court resolved disputed equalization, support, and parenting terms after most parenting issues had been settled.

The court held that a parental $200,000 reduction of a registered mortgage was not a completed gift before marriage because the donors retained control until the mortgage discharge after marriage, and the applicant therefore failed to prove the claimed date-of-marriage deduction.

The court also found that the applicant wrongfully refused to close a matrimonial home buyout by insisting on improper family law adjustments under the agreement of purchase and sale, and ordered forfeiture of half of the $110,000 deposit to the respondent.

Recurring parental payments for childcare and legal fees were treated as income rather than loans, leading to imputation of income at $111,583 from 2019 onward.

Set-off child support and proportionate section 7 sharing were ordered, spousal support was denied, and detailed parenting terms were fixed.

The husband appealed two spousal support orders made after trial, challenging the quantification of ongoing, lump sum catch-up, and retroactive support, as well as the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding income imputation, retroactive support start date, occupation rent, and calculation methods.

The court found no reversible error of law or material error of fact, emphasizing the narrow scope of appellate review in family law matters.

The appellant appealed an order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home.

The appellant also brought a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding his medical condition and the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained with due diligence prior to the original hearing.

The court also dismissed the appeal, concluding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that partition and sale would not prejudice the appellant's substantive rights and that the respondent's motion was not frivolous or vexatious.

The applicant wife sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds paid into court.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that an interim sale would prejudice his substantive rights under the Family Law Act or that the motion was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The court found that the sale would not prejudice the husband's substantive rights, as his financial interests would be protected by payment into court, and a potential vesting order was too remote.

The court also determined the motion was not vexatious or malicious, noting the wife had sought the sale since 2019 and that it moved the parties closer to resolution.

The motion for sale was granted, with specific terms for listing and sale.

The plaintiffs sought leave to issue certificates of pending litigation against three investment properties and an order to preserve the proceeds of sale of a fourth property.

The properties were transferred pursuant to a complex butterfly transaction.

The court found that while there might be a triable issue, the equities did not favour granting the relief.

The plaintiff's evidence was misleading, damages would be an adequate remedy, and the issues were better suited for family law proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the action against her on summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent concealment based on bare suspicion, took shifting positions on the limitation period, and rejected reasonable offers to settle.

The court concluded that this conduct was worthy of sanction and awarded the defendant $45,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount for proportionality.

The appellant appealed a trial decision concerning spousal support, equalization payment, imputation of income, and the dismissal of a fresh evidence motion.

The respondent cross-appealed regarding an error in the equalization calculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on all five grounds, affirming the trial judge's decisions on interpreter competency, lump sum child support, income imputation, spousal support, and the refusal to admit fresh evidence.

The court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by not deducting the value of a date of marriage asset from the respondent's net family property in the equalization calculations, leading to an increased equalization payment owed by the appellant.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim against her on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant fraudulently concealed her involvement in faulty renovations, delaying the discoverability of their claim.

The court found no evidence of fraudulent concealment and concluded that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of their potential claim against the defendant well before the limitation period expired.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claim against the defendant was dismissed.

The plaintiff, acting through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for an order approving the sale of a property and preserving the net sale proceeds in trust pending further court order.

The defendants opposed the preservation of funds, seeking immediate payout.

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiff's capacity at the time of previous property transfers and the validity of a trust declaration.

Given the defendants' breach of an undertaking and the risk of dissipation of funds, the court granted the preservation order under Rules 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering the sale proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant moved for an order determining the sum he must pay the respondent to purchase their jointly owned matrimonial home, effectively seeking to vary a previous order that required the home to be listed for sale.

The parties had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale that failed to close.

The court held that, absent an agreement or a formal motion to vary, it lacked jurisdiction to order a transfer of property to the applicant on new terms.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion but updated the timelines in the previous order to facilitate the sale of the home.

The moving party insurer brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's application for judicial review for delay.

The respondent had commenced the application over 30 months prior but took no steps to perfect it until the eve of the motion.

The court applied the test for dismissing an application for judicial review for delay, finding the 30-month delay excessive, the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, and the delay long enough to presume prejudice.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

In the context of a motion to change a final support order, the parties brought cross-motions.

The mother sought additional financial disclosure regarding the father's corporate income, while the father sought a retroactive reduction in child support because the eldest child had moved in with him.

The court struck portions of the mother's affidavit as irrelevant, ordered the father to provide most of the requested financial disclosure to allow the mother's expert to assess his income, and granted the father's request to retroactively reduce his child support obligation and require the mother to pay support for the eldest child.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as guardian of property for Asha Kumra, sought advice and direction from the court regarding whether Minutes of Settlement, entered into by Asha's sons Sanjiv and Rajiv Kumra, were binding on the guardian and precluded it from pursuing claims related to property transfers made by Asha prior to a one-year limitation period specified in the Minutes.

The court found that the Minutes were not binding on Scotiatrust or Asha Kumra, as neither was a party to the agreement, nor was Asha legally represented during its negotiation.

Consequently, Scotiatrust retains the discretion to pursue claims in Asha Kumra's best interests, irrespective of the limitation period in the Minutes.

The appellants, former directors of a non-profit daycare centre, appealed the dismissal of their application for leave to commence a derivative action against a former director and administrator for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the action was bound to fail, noting that the board of directors and the Public Guardian and Trustee had already investigated the allegations and taken no action.

The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The Applicant sought a Mareva injunction and a non-depletion order against her deceased husband (Respondent) and an added party (his extramarital partner) to freeze assets allegedly transferred to frustrate an equalization claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that no order could be issued against the deceased respondent due to the stay of proceedings, and that the Mareva injunction failed because the added party had no assets in Ontario, the assets were already dissipated outside the jurisdiction, and the applicant failed to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The non-depletion order under the Family Law Act also failed as it cannot enjoin property of strangers to the family law action and the applicant did not establish a trust.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall on a stairway.

The plaintiff fell while carrying a large basket down the stairs at a home owned by the co-defendant, where the moving defendant frequently stayed.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding whether the moving defendant was an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Act and whether she breached a duty of care by instructing the plaintiff to carry the basket downstairs.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.