Karen Mitchell

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant owned the matrimonial home prior to marriage.

The respondent claimed a constructive or resulting trust interest in the home due to its significant post-separation increase in value.

The court found that while there was a joint family venture resulting in unjust enrichment, a monetary award through the statutory equalization process was sufficient to remedy it.

The respondent's trust and occupation rent claims were dismissed.

The court also determined the value of a mortgage held by the applicant's father and calculated retroactive child support.

The applicant was ordered to pay a net equalization payment of $199,281.32.

In CCAA proceedings involving the debtor corporations, a significant creditor sought a declaration imposing a constructive trust and super‑priority over litigation proceeds to recover payments it made to a strategic advisor who served as a director and litigation committee chair.

The creditor argued that the payments justified a solicitor’s lien, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, or oppression remedy.

The court held the advisor’s work was performed in the capacity of a director and business advisor rather than as a solicitor, precluding a solicitor’s lien.

The court further held that the criteria for unjust enrichment and constructive trust were not satisfied and that imposing a proprietary remedy would disrupt the established CCAA priority regime.

The motion seeking super‑priority status was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.