J. Waxman

The applicant brought a guardianship application regarding one of the respondents, which was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs.

The court found no reason to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, fixing the costs at $56,224.11 for one respondent and $44,000 for the other, payable by the applicant in three instalments.

Two competing applications were brought by family members.

The applicant daughter applied for guardianship over her 90-year-old mother and challenged the validity of her mother's new will, powers of attorney, and the transfer of her home to her other daughter, alleging undue influence and lack of capacity.

The mother applied to remove the applicant daughter as a joint account holder on her investment account.

The applicant daughter moved to consolidate the applications into an action requiring a trial.

The court found that the mother's capacity was the controlling issue and could be decided on the application record without a trial.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence and the mother's own testimony, the court concluded that the mother had the requisite capacity to manage her property and personal care, grant powers of attorney, make a will, and make an inter vivos gift.

Because the mother had capacity and the impugned instruments were executory, the court declined to direct a trial on the issue of undue influence.

The applicant daughter's application was dismissed, and the mother's application to remove the applicant daughter from the joint account was granted.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full recovery costs of $139,675.71.

The court found that the respondent beat her offers to settle and that the applicant acted in bad faith by hiding income, failing to make disclosure, and advancing spurious claims to drain the respondent's resources.

The court awarded the respondent her full claimed costs of $139,675.71, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as child and spousal support.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant husband claimed he had no assets, lived on loans from friends, and sought an unequal division of net family property in his favour.

The respondent wife claimed a resulting trust in the matrimonial home, equalization, and support, alleging the husband hid assets and income.

The court found the husband failed to make full and frank disclosure, hid foreign assets, and received substantial undisclosed income and gifts.

The court granted the wife a resulting trust in the matrimonial home, imputed an annual income of $349,544 to the husband, awarded the wife a lump sum spousal support payment of $434,784, and ordered the net proceeds of the matrimonial home be paid to her in satisfaction of her claims.

The applicant, a restaurant franchisor, moved for an injunction to prevent the respondent landlord from leasing premises in the same mall to a bingo hall, arguing it violated an exclusivity clause prohibiting leases to any 'restaurant, bar or other food service business'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the bingo hall's ancillary snack bar did not make it a food service business within the meaning of the exclusivity clause.

The court held there was no serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing multiple civil actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by her 17‑year‑old son while impaired.

The central issue was whether the son had the owner's implied consent to possess and operate the vehicle, engaging owner liability principles.

The court held that the issue of implied consent could properly be determined on summary judgment where the evidentiary record was complete and no responding party adduced evidence.

Accepting the son's consistent discovery evidence that he did not believe he had permission and had taken the vehicle without consent, the court found no implied consent on a balance of probabilities.

The actions against the vehicle owner were dismissed.