4 total
Appeal dismissed; no mutual intention found to sever joint tenancy of the matrimonial home.
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.
Court fixes reduced costs despite successful defence and failed fraud allegations.
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.
Lease liability found, but bankruptcy discharge defeated the claim.
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.
Equalization payment ordered and matrimonial home ordered sold; respondent's claim for spousal support dismissed.
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.
