Jonathan H. Marler

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Receiver brought a motion for a contempt order against the respondent for failing to comply with a Receivership Order.

The court previously found the respondent in contempt.

At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the respondent's subsequent efforts to purge his contempt, including attending examinations and providing documents, as well as his apology.

Applying the Cavalon factors, the court declined to impose a custodial sentence but ordered the respondent to pay a $15,000 fine, declaring it a penalty under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The plaintiffs (daughter and her partner) sued the defendant (father) for specific performance or damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement to sell the family home to them.

The plaintiffs moved into the home and completed extensive renovations, believing they had an agreement to purchase the home at a discounted price and an extension of the closing date.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral agreement to transfer the property because there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of price, nor was there an agreement to extend the closing date.

The claim for specific performance was dismissed as the property was not objectively unique.

However, the court awarded the plaintiffs $178,860.70 in damages for unjust enrichment to compensate them for the cost of the renovations that increased the value of the defendant's home.

The bankrupt, a lawyer, made an assignment in bankruptcy but concealed it for years while an estate trustee sued him for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation, eventually obtaining a default judgment.

The bankrupt later sought to rely on the automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to avoid the judgment and subsequent costs orders.

The court dismissed the bankrupt's motion and granted the estate trustee's motion, finding that the claim was too remote and speculative to be a provable claim in bankruptcy.

Alternatively, the court held the debt would survive bankruptcy under s. 178 due to the bankrupt's misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and that it would be equitable to lift the stay under s. 69.4 given the bankrupt's egregious conduct.

The appellant estate appealed a decision finding that the joint tenancy of a matrimonial home had not been severed before the deceased's death.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that, despite the deteriorating relationship between the parties, there was no mutual intention to treat their interests as a tenancy in common.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed, as it did not materially change the evidence regarding mutual intention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation in relation to a residential property.

The plaintiffs alleged they advanced funds toward the construction of a home that was not completed on time, resulting in termination of the agreement of purchase and sale and a claim for return of funds and an interest in the land.

The court considered the leave test under rule 62.02(4)(b) and assumed, without deciding, that there might be reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying order.

However, the court held that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of sufficient importance beyond the parties to justify appellate intervention.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following a non‑jury trial concerning a vehicle lease agreement, the plaintiff’s claim for damages was dismissed because the alleged debt was extinguished by the defendant’s prior bankruptcy after the plaintiff failed to prove fraud under s. 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiff advanced allegations of fraud.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified, finding the amount claimed excessive and noting aspects of the defendant’s conduct that prolonged the trial.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at a reduced amount.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the sum of $25,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The plaintiff lessor sued for amounts allegedly owing under a commercial vehicle lease and the defendant denied signing the lease, alternatively asserting that any liability had been extinguished by bankruptcy.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defendant did sign the lease agreement and was liable under it.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish that the debt survived discharge under s. 178(1)(d) or (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as the evidence did not prove fraud in a fiduciary capacity, false pretences, fraudulent misrepresentation, or wilful blindness by the bankrupt.

The debt was therefore extinguished by the defendant’s bankruptcy and the action failed.

The parties separated in 2011 after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought spousal support.

The court determined the value of various disputed assets and liabilities to calculate net family property, ultimately ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $8,053.25 after accounting for post-separation credits.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support, finding no entitlement under the Bracklow criteria.

Finally, the court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the respondent's consent due to his reluctance to sell.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent law firm for unpaid legal fees.

The appellant argued it is unjust to grant summary judgment for solicitor's fees without an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had repeatedly agreed to pay the accounts and his complaints about the quality of work were afterthoughts intended to delay the claim.

The motions judge correctly applied the test for summary judgment under Rule 76.07(9).

The debtor appealed a receiving order in bankruptcy.

The petitioning creditors relied on judgments entered against the debtor more than six months prior to the petition.

The debtor argued that the creditors failed to prove an act of bankruptcy within the six months preceding the petition because no fresh demand for payment was made.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a judgment is a continuing demand for payment and a fresh demand within the six-month period is not required to establish an act of bankruptcy.