Lisa M. Walters

This case addresses the complex interaction between the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act concerning the expiry of restrictive covenants on real property.

The central issue was whether a notice of claim, registered under the Registry Act to extend a restrictive covenant, remained effective after the property was converted to the land titles system.

The court determined that the date of registration for the purpose of the Land Titles Act's 40-year expiry rule becomes the date the notice of claim was filed, thereby extending the covenant's validity.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to delete a caution and set aside a prior order that had removed the covenant, ruling in favour of the respondent who benefited from the covenant.

This trial decision addresses a divorce, equalization of net family properties, and an accounting of rents and post-separation expenses between Guy Gionet (Applicant) and Franca Pingue (Respondent).

The court determined beneficial ownership of several properties, finding a resulting trust in favour of the applicant for the matrimonial home and a constructive trust in favour of the respondent for two investment properties.

The applicant was found more credible.

An equalization payment of $59,535.98 was ordered from the applicant to the respondent.

Claims for post-separation expenses and rent accounting were dismissed, as the respondent's expenses were offset by rents received.

The court determined costs following a family law trial concerning child support.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs of approximately $45,525 or alternatively partial indemnity costs of approximately $34,474, while the opposing party argued that no costs should be ordered.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the successful party was entitled to costs despite not obtaining the full relief sought.

The court considered that the unsuccessful party had taken an aggressive litigation position and underestimated income, while also noting the absence of an offer to settle and excessive time spent litigating income issues.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought retroactive child support and contribution toward post-secondary education expenses for the parties’ adult child.

The respondent had failed to provide annual financial disclosure as required by a prior support order and continued paying child support based on an outdated imputed income despite increases in income and retained corporate earnings.

The court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct and imputed additional income, including retained earnings, personal benefits, and income splitting with a spouse.

Applying the principles in S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court ordered retroactive child support for three years and determined the adult child regained “child of the marriage” status upon returning to full-time university studies.

The respondent was ordered to contribute a fixed annual amount toward the child’s post‑secondary education expenses.

Following a family law trial involving custody and a proposed relocation of a child, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although both parties achieved partial success regarding custody, the respondent was unsuccessful in her request to relocate the child to Kingston.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined that the applicant achieved greater success on the central issue and was entitled to costs.

The court also emphasized that costs must be awarded for specific stages of proceedings, referencing appellate authority.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after termination without cause, while the defendant later alleged fraudulent pre-employment misrepresentations as just cause.

The court rejected the just cause defence, found six months of reasonable notice, accepted most claimed compensation items, rejected mitigation arguments, and awarded damages.