Martin Paul Morrissey

A mother and her adult son with his spouse disputed the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a jointly-owned home.

The mother had contributed substantially to the down payment and closing costs from the proceeds of her own home sale, while the son and his wife contributed to ongoing household expenses.

The parties had not documented their arrangement or discussed what would occur if the living arrangement failed.

The court applied the doctrine of purchase money resulting trust and found that the son and daughter-in-law failed to rebut the presumption by establishing that the down payment was intended as a gift.

The court awarded the mother her initial contribution plus a proportional share of the remaining proceeds.

The decision concerns the validity and testamentary effect of a 2019 Option Agreement, 2019 Wills, and two handwritten documents in the estate of Joyce Eileen Laur.

The applicant, Robert Jackson Laur, sought a declaration that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, and that at least one handwritten document constituted a holograph will.

The respondents argued incapacity and undue influence regarding the Option Agreement and challenged the testamentary intent of the handwritten documents.

The court found that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, as it reflected a longstanding intention and was not a new or complex decision for Grant Laur, despite his cognitive impairment.

The court also found that the handwritten documents did not reflect Joyce Laur’s fixed and final testamentary intention and thus had no testamentary import.

The court considered whether a person intending to make a claim against an estate for unjust enrichment, based on services rendered to the deceased, has standing to file a Notice of Objection to the granting of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee under Rule 75.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to seek removal of the Estate Trustee named in the will.

The court held that such a potential creditor does not have standing to file a Notice of Objection, as the category of persons with standing is limited to those whose claims turn on the outcome of a challenge to the will or the issuance of a certificate of appointment.

The Notice of Objection was ordered removed.

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that her mother's 2016 will was invalid.

Only one respondent filed a notice of appearance.

The applicant and two former solicitors of the deceased submitted a consent Order for Directions that would convert the application into an action and mandate extensive discovery.

The court declined to sign the draft order, noting that the failure of the other respondents to file notices of appearance effectively rendered the application uncontested.

The court required further evidence or submissions to justify complicating the proceeding and consuming scarce judicial resources when a streamlined, uncontested procedure was available.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside the administrative dismissal of his counterclaim for defamation.

The action and counterclaim had been dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court applied the Reid factors and a contextual approach, finding that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, relying only on a lawyer's hearsay affidavit rather than direct evidence.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was dismissed.

The appellant WMJO Limited appealed a trial judgment finding it liable to contribute on a pro rata basis to the expenses incurred by the respondent Middlesex Condominium Corporation 229 to maintain and operate a sanitary sewer pumping station.

The trial judge found WMJO liable based on unjust enrichment and contract principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that WMJO was enriched by connecting to the existing pumping station without bearing operating or management costs, while MCC 229 suffered corresponding deprivation.

The court rejected WMJO's argument that positive covenants running with land and statutory obligations provided a juristic reason to deny recovery.

A condominium corporation operating a private sewage pumping station sought a declaration that neighbouring townhouse developments connected to the system were required to contribute to operating and maintenance costs.

The original joint use and maintenance agreement contained positive covenants that did not run with the land, preventing direct contractual enforcement against subsequent owners.

The court held that although the covenant could not bind successors in title, the unit owner defendant had knowingly received and benefited from sewage services for years while making intermittent payments.

Applying principles of implied contract and unjust enrichment, the court found the defendant had been enriched, the plaintiff suffered corresponding deprivation, and there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

The court declared that the unit owner defendant must pay a pro rata share of the sewage system’s operating and maintenance costs.

The defendant moved to stay an Ontario negligence and contract action arising from alleged defects in industrial thermostats supplied under an international commercial relationship.

The moving party relied on a contractual clause submitting to the jurisdiction of the English courts and argued that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that England was the clearly more appropriate forum.

Applying the presumptive connecting factors framework, the court held that the alleged torts were committed in Ontario and that Ontario therefore had jurisdiction.

The court further held that the moving party failed to establish forum non conveniens or to show that the English courts should displace the plaintiff's chosen forum.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application for a declaration that a section of a forced road had been assumed by the municipality as a public highway.

The application judge found that historical, sporadic maintenance by the municipality did not demonstrate a clear and unequivocal intention to assume the road.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence.

An association representing taxicab owners and drivers applied under the Municipal Act, 2001 to quash a municipal taxi and limousine bylaw enacted by the city.

The applicant alleged the bylaw was passed in bad faith and discriminated against the taxicab industry by permitting limousine operators to compete without comparable restrictions.

The court held that municipalities possess broad authority under the Municipal Act to regulate and differentiate between classes of vehicles for hire, including setting fares and licensing regimes.

The evidence demonstrated extensive consultation, investigation, and debate prior to enactment of the bylaw.

The applicant failed to establish the high threshold required to prove municipal bad faith or unlawful discrimination.

The applicant, a student whose parents share joint custody and live in separate residences, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the school board and transportation consortium refused to allow him to take different school buses to his parents' respective homes on alternating weeks.

The respondents relied on a Primary Address Policy, arguing that alternating schedules posed safety and operational risks.

The Tribunal found the policy resulted in constructive discrimination because of family status.

The Tribunal further held that the respondents failed to meet their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate, as they did not assess the individual request or demonstrate that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship.

The respondents were ordered to amend their transportation policies to provide for the accommodation of students subject to custody arrangements.

The applicant, a Town Councilor with a hearing impairment, alleged that the Town of Cochrane and its Mayor discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability.

The applicant requested a speaker system after ear buds proved insufficient, and used a tape recorder to review meetings.

The respondents confiscated the tape recorder and failed to install a speaker system.

The Tribunal found that the Town failed to meet its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant's disability up to the point of undue hardship.

The Town was ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages and review its accommodation policies.

The application against the Mayor personally was dismissed.

The appellant requested an adjournment of his appeal, which was dismissed due to his failure to appear despite ample notice.

The appeal itself was dismissed as moot because the appellant had already filed a fourth statement of claim that conformed with the order under appeal, and the respondents had filed a statement of defence.

The appellant was ordered to pay costs of $6,600.

The defendants brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's appeal from an order striking the statement of claim in its entirety with leave to resubmit an amended statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory rather than final because it did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties.

Consequently, the appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.