3 total
Interim motion for partition and sale of jointly owned home dismissed due to prejudice and hardship.
The applicant moved for an interim order for the partition and sale of a jointly owned home under the Partition Act.
The parties had separated following an incident of family violence by the applicant against the respondent's child, resulting in the applicant's removal from the home.
The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it would prejudice her resulting trust claim to be determined at trial and would negatively impact the children.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that an interim sale would prejudice the respondent's trust claim and cause undue hardship to the children, who would be forced to move from their community.
Motion for property division adjourned with directions to amend pleadings as the issue was unpled.
The respondent brought a motion for an equal division of the net proceeds from the sale of a property jointly owned by the unmarried parties.
The applicant opposed, claiming a resulting trust or unjust enrichment based on his unequal financial contributions.
The court found that neither party had pled the issue of property division in their application or answer, and the evidentiary record was deficient.
The court adjourned the motion, granting both parties leave to amend their pleadings and file further evidence.
Reconsideration of decision deferring OHSA complaint involving race discrimination to Human Rights Commission dismissed.
The applicant sought reconsideration of an earlier Board decision that deferred his occupational health and safety complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The applicant argued the Board made factual errors, improperly declined to hear evidence about the Commission's efficacy, erred in its deferral discretion, and violated the Charter and Human Rights Code by deferring a complaint involving race discrimination.
The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicant did not meet the threshold test for reconsideration and that the earlier decision was neither clearly wrong in law nor contrary to Board policy.
The Board also held that deferring a complaint principally about race discrimination to the specialized human rights tribunal did not violate equality rights.