Lubomir Poliacik

The respondent in a family law application brought a motion for 28 items of disclosure.

The applicant's underlying claim sought a constructive or resulting trust over two properties transferred to the respondent for nominal consideration.

The respondent sought a comprehensive business valuation of the applicant's businesses to support her alternative claim for setoff based on her contributions to his business.

The court denied the request for a business valuation, finding it irrelevant to both the trust claims and the setoff claim.

The court made various orders granting, denying, or confirming agreement on the remaining disclosure requests.

A lawyer appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for malicious prosecution and breach of contract against her.

The trial judge found that the lawyer had initiated criminal proceedings against an unlicensed paralegal by making misleading complaints to police regarding missing client files.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the lawyer initiated the prosecution, as the police exercised independent discretion in their investigation.

The court also found errors in the trial judge's application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and in taking judicial notice regarding mitigation of damages.

The plaintiff law clerk sued the defendant lawyer for breach of a business agreement and malicious prosecution.

The defendant had falsely reported to the police that the plaintiff stole client files and forged letterhead, leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court found the defendant's evidence completely lacking in credibility, concluding she fabricated evidence, withheld exculpatory information from the police, and acted with malice.

The plaintiff was awarded $7,500 for breach of contract, $50,000 for malicious prosecution, and $25,000 in punitive damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his title insurer, FCT, for amounts owing under a policy following a mortgage fraud.

The parties agreed that some amount was owing, leaving only the quantification of interest and coverage of certain fees in dispute.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compound interest as provided in the mortgage, rejecting FCT's argument to substitute statutory interest.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for a notice of sale fee and a lender's fee, finding they were not covered under the policy's terms.

Following the breakdown of their 12-year common law relationship, the applicant and respondent disputed property division, spousal support, child support, and travel consent for their children.

The court found that while the parties were engaged in a joint family venture, there was no unjust enrichment, and dismissed the trust claims regarding two properties, leaving title as is.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent, ordering the applicant to pay $2,440 per month in spousal support for four years, and the respondent to pay $743 per month in child support.

The court also established a protocol for obtaining children's government documents and travel consent.

An application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the current value assessment of a commercial property.

The applicant argued the Board committed an error of law by requiring the use of at least two of the three generally accepted property valuation approaches to establish current value.

The court held that, read as a whole, the Board’s reasons did not impose such a legal requirement but instead reflected a preference for the respondent’s expert evidence using the direct sales comparison approach.

The alleged error concerned the weight given to evidence, which is a question of fact and not appealable under the Assessment Act.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.