Manny Rai

The applicants, elderly parents, sought an order vesting title to a residential property registered in their daughter's name, claiming a purchase money resulting trust, bare trust, or constructive trust.

The property was purchased by their son, who later gifted it to the daughter.

The parents claimed they had paid for a previous property whose sale proceeds funded the current one, and that they contributed to upkeep.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the parents contributed to the purchase price, no written agreement or certainty of intention for a bare trust, and no unjust enrichment to support a constructive trust, as the parents had lived rent-free in the properties for years.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.