K. Commisso

The applicants sought the court's opinion on the validity of a handwritten, improperly executed codicil and whether the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Foundation was the residuary beneficiary.

The court found the codicil valid under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, as it clearly expressed the testator's testamentary intentions.

Applying the cy-près doctrine and considering extrinsic evidence, the court determined that the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Foundation was indeed the residuary beneficiary, as it was impracticable to identify the "service organizations" mentioned in the original will and the testator had an overriding charitable intent towards the hospital.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent bank for a defaulted vehicle loan and dismissing his defendant's claim.

The appellant argued he thought he was only co-signing for a friend and challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction over a contract signed in Saskatchewan.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that Ontario had jurisdiction over the appellant, that there was valid consideration, and that no misrepresentations were made by the bank or dealership.

However, the court remitted the matter back to the trial judge solely to provide reasons for dismissing the defendant's claim against the bank.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that she suffered a catastrophic impairment following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, entitling her to enhanced statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurer argued her impairment stemmed from pre-existing mental health and addiction issues.

The court applied the 'but for' test for causation, finding that despite her pre-existing vulnerabilities, the accident triggered a conversion disorder that catastrophically impaired her functioning.

The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to attendant care benefits even if she had not actually paid for them out of pocket, as requiring an insured to finance their own care would defeat the remedial purpose of the legislation.

The defendants, Emilio and Kristi Feletto, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs' claim arose from the purchase of a residential property allegedly built with major structural defects.

The court struck two subparagraphs against Emilio with leave to amend, but declined to strike the remaining impugned paragraphs, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims in negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation would fail.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs of the motion.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a six-year marriage.

The husband sought a declaration of resulting trust over three properties registered solely in the wife's name, as well as funds in a joint bank account.

The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted for the properties, granting the husband a beneficial half-interest in each.

The court also found the joint bank account funds were jointly owned.

The court resolved disputes over the valuation of the husband's business shares at the date of marriage, preferring the wife's expert valuator, and determined the value of various disputed chattels, including tools and an engagement ring.

The husband's claim for an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act was dismissed.

The wife was ordered to pay an equalization payment to the husband.