Anthony Russo

The applicant and respondent, father and son, jointly owned a property used for their auto body business.

The applicant sought an unequal distribution of the proceeds from the property's sale, claiming unjust enrichment because his corporation paid all expenses and improvements since 2005.

The court dismissed the application, finding the claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act because the cause of action arose in 2007-2008 when the respondent refused to transfer title.

Alternatively, the court found the applicant failed to prove unjust enrichment, as the corporation, not the applicant personally, incurred the expenses, and there was a juristic reason for the respondent's retention of the benefit.

The respondent brought a motion for the immediate partition and sale of the jointly owned family home.

The applicant opposed the sale, arguing it would prejudice his claims for resulting trust and unjust enrichment, as he alleged he solely funded the purchase and construction of the home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a sale was not an inevitable result at trial if the applicant succeeded on his resulting trust claim.

The court also ordered the parties to exchange Affidavits Listing Documents and proceed to questioning to address missing disclosure.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit the conversion of an existing boathouse into a sauna and indoor storage.

The municipality did not participate in the appeal, but a neighbouring property owner opposed the application, citing environmental and visual impact concerns.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, relying on a municipal planning report which concluded the minor height increase on the existing footprint would have no measurable impact and that the proposal was consistent with provincial policy and conformed to the Official Plan.

The appellants were directors of a logging corporation that failed to remit employee source deductions and net HST.

Following the loss of its primary logging and road-maintenance contracts, the corporation experienced severe financial hardship.

The directors liquidated personal assets to pay the corporation's commercial creditors but failed to satisfy its tax obligations.

The Minister assessed the directors for the unremitted amounts under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act.

On appeal, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the directors failed to establish the due diligence defence.

The Court held that the directors' actions were curative rather than preventative, and that they had impermissibly financed the corporation's operations using unremitted Crown funds.