N.

This trial decision addresses the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement (CA) and associated property claims between common-law spouses.

The Applicant sought to set aside the CA, alleging duress, undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation, and lack of meaningful independent legal advice (ILA), and claimed a constructive trust interest in the family home.

The court found that the Applicant was not under duress or undue influence when signing the CA, nor were the property division provisions unconscionable.

The court also determined that the parties' conduct did not repudiate the CA.

The Applicant's claims regarding the CA's validity concerning property rights and her constructive trust claim were dismissed, affirming that property should be divided according to legal title as per the agreement.

The applicant, a passive minority shareholder in a closely-held printing business, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholder.

The applicant sought to force a buyout of his shares at fair market value, alleging he was excluded from decision-making and denied financial information.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had historically chosen not to be involved in the business and that the respondent had not frustrated any reasonable expectations.

The court concluded that the oppression remedy was an improper vehicle for resolving a simple dispute over share valuation.

Elizabeth Ogunlesi brought a motion seeking to amend her claim, consolidate two actions, and obtain an order for security for costs in both.

The primary issue addressed by the court was security for costs.

In the Residential Action (CV-13-473552), the motion for security for costs against Talon International Inc. was dismissed, as Talon's counterclaim was found to be inextricably linked to the main claim, functioning as a defence.

In the companion Hotel Action (CV-14-515666), the court ordered Talon International Inc. to post $10,000 as security for costs to the end of pre-trial, finding that Talon, as a corporation in receivership, had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, satisfying Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The defendant, Tribecca Finance Corporation, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs due to an unpaid costs award in a related action.

The plaintiffs resisted the motion, arguing delay, the merits of their case, and the quantum of security.

The court found that the defendant's delay was not unreasonable and that the merits of the action were a neutral factor given credibility issues.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $32,000 in security for costs.

Costs of the motion were split due to a Rule 49 offer to settle made by the plaintiffs.