Joy Nwawe

The appellant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of a condominium owned by the estate of the deceased, claiming an express or resulting trust.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of a trust agreement or gratuitous payments, and noting that oral evidence alone cannot create an interest in land under the Statute of Frauds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence.

The applicant initiated divorce proceedings and sought equalization of net family property, initially asserting a marriage.

Later, he claimed the parties were not legally married, leading to a trial to determine the validity of their marriage.

The court examined evidence regarding Nigerian customary and statutory marriages, including the concept of "double-decker" marriages.

The applicant's credibility was found to be low, and the court concluded that the parties were validly married under both Nigerian customary and statutory law, and thus were spouses under Ontario's Family Law Act.

The respondent sought to vary a 2005 consent order for child and spousal support, and to rescind arrears, arguing a material change in circumstances due to chronic debilitating mental illness preventing him from working since 2008.

The court found a material change occurred as of May 1, 2012, when the respondent began receiving ODSP benefits, and that this change was unforeseen and lasting.

The court terminated the respondent's support obligation and rescinded arrears from May 1, 2012, finding no basis to impute income after that date due to his inability to work.

At a case management hearing in a guardianship dispute, the court ordered the waiver of solicitor-client privilege for three lawyers who prepared Powers of Attorney for the incapable person, Paul Tanti, to allow them to testify at the upcoming hearing.

The court also directed that former Section 3 counsel for Paul Tanti transition to the role of amicus curiae, given her intimate knowledge of the complex and highly acrimonious proceeding, and set out the order of presentation and permitted evidence for the upcoming hearing.

Following a decision to set aside a guardianship order, the parties made written submissions on costs.

Although the respondent was successful in setting aside the order, the court declined to award her costs due to her unreasonable conduct, which included prolonging the hearing and ignoring the spirit of the judgment.

The applicant was also denied costs as he was unsuccessful and had relied on inaccurate information.

The court ordered no costs to either party.

The moving party, the wife of the incapable person, brought a motion to set aside a 2019 ex parte Guardianship Order that appointed the incapable person's son as his sole guardian of property and person.

The court found that the original order was intended to be temporary and was granted based on allegations of missing funds and abandonment that were later admitted to be untrue.

The court set aside the Guardianship Order on grounds of procedural fairness and under Rule 59.06(2)(a) based on facts discovered after it was made.

However, the court temporarily stayed the setting aside of the order for 90 days to prevent a vacuum in the incapable person's care while the parties determine the validity of competing powers of attorney.

This appeal concerned the capacity of Paul Tanti to enter into a marriage with Sharon Joseph.

Raymond Tanti, Paul's son, appealed the trial judge's decision that the marriage was valid, arguing his father lacked the requisite capacity.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings, holding that the correct legal test for marriage capacity was applied, which requires understanding the nature of the marriage contract and its duties.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including the discounting of non-contemporaneous expert opinions and the reliance on direct lay witness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the marriage.

The moving party, Sharon Joseph, brought a motion to set aside or vary an order of Benotto J.A. which had dismissed her motion to expedite an appeal of an interlocutory order.

The interlocutory order in question had granted a stay of guardianship proceedings pending the disposition of an appeal regarding the validity of a marriage.

The Court of Appeal found no error in Benotto J.A.'s reasoning that the order was procedural and interlocutory, and therefore no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal.

The court also noted that determining the marriage's validity first was efficient.

The motion to vary was dismissed, and the purported appeal was quashed.

The moving party sought to validate her marriage to an elderly man with worsening dementia, which was challenged by the responding party, the man's son.

The son had previously obtained a guardianship order in the wife's absence and alleged the marriage was predatory.

The court found that the son failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his father lacked the capacity to marry on the date of the wedding.

The court placed little weight on retrospective expert assessments and relied on direct evidence of the couple's long-term relationship and the father's understanding of the marriage.

The marriage was declared valid, and the son was ordered to pay $50,000 in full indemnity costs due to his egregious conduct.

This ruling addresses costs following the resolution of all other issues in a family law case.

The Applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, citing success and the Respondent's unreasonable behaviour and delay.

The Respondent sought costs and reimbursement, alleging the Applicant withheld financial disclosure, obstructed attempts to obtain it, caused undue delay, and acted in bad faith.

The court found that both parties withheld relevant financial information, caused undue delay, and acted in bad faith, thereby rebutting the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

Given that the Applicant had already been awarded interim costs, no further costs were ordered for either party.