3 total
Summary judgment granted declaring father has equal beneficial interest in matrimonial home and ordering its sale.
The respondent father brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that the matrimonial home, registered solely in the applicant mother's name, was held in trust for both of them, and an order for its sale.
The paternal grandmother, who had advanced funds for the home's purchase, supported the motion and abandoned her proprietary claim, seeking only repayment.
The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding ownership, concluding the father had an equal beneficial interest based on unjust enrichment.
The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home within 45 days, with $500,000 of the proceeds to be held in trust pending resolution of the grandmother's civil action and other financial issues.
Leave granted to amend defence; most interim relief dismissed pending trial.
The defendant brought a motion seeking various forms of interim relief relating to possession and management of an Ottawa taxi plate that was the subject of a long-standing family dispute.
The moving party alleged breaches of a prior order governing rental payments and management of the taxi plate and sought additional orders including possession and other remedies.
The court found that the alleged breaches were disputed and that the existing order provided sufficient protection pending trial.
Leave was granted to amend the statement of defence to add a counterclaim under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the action was placed under case management with a timetable leading to trial.
Most substantive relief sought in the motion was dismissed, while procedural amendments and scheduling directions were granted.
A plaintiff cannot move to dismiss its own action to avoid the costs consequences of discontinuance.
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation based on two letters.
Upon discovering the letters had not been published, the plaintiffs brought a motion to dismiss their own action and sought costs against the defendants.
The motion judge treated the motion as a discontinuance and awarded costs to the defendants under Rule 23.05.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that a plaintiff cannot move to dismiss its own action to avoid the presumptive costs consequences of discontinuance.
