M. Claire Wilkinson

The plaintiff moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant, his mother and the estate trustee of his late father's estate.

The underlying litigation involves a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a property.

The plaintiff sought production of the deceased's bank and tax records from 1997 onwards, as well as files from the deceased's financial planners, estate planning lawyer, and real estate lawyer.

The court ordered the production of the financial planners' file, finding it relevant, existent, and within the defendant's control.

The remaining requests were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the documents existed, were proportional to produce, or were within the defendant's power, possession, and control.

The defendant 2602317 Ontario Inc. brought a motion to hold the defendants SAI Consulting Services Inc. and Toronto Wire & Solutions Corp. in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring them to pay specific funds received from a real estate transaction into court.

The responding defendants brought cross-motions to set aside the prior order, arguing it was impossible to comply because the specific funds had already been disbursed.

The court dismissed the cross-motions, finding the prior order was clear and the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify setting it aside.

The court found the corporate defendants in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, and ordered their directors to respond personally at the penalty phase.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant father sought partition and sale of a jointly owned property, occupation rent, and spousal support, while acknowledging his obligation to pay child support.

The court found the father had an 85% beneficial interest in the Colchester property via resulting trust and ordered its partition and sale.

Due to the mother's failure to provide financial disclosure, the court imputed her income based on rental properties and employment, ordering her to pay $28,000 in occupation rent and significant retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, and was awarded full indemnity costs due to the mother's non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the registrar's administrative dismissal of his malicious prosecution action.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the defendant suffered actual prejudice.

The court also held that even if the dismissal were set aside, the action would be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious because the plaintiff could not establish the elements of malicious prosecution, given that the police independently laid the charges and the plaintiff pled guilty to assault.

The respondent husband brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home to obtain funds for legal expenses and to continue making support payments.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing that she had established a prima facie case for a vesting order to satisfy her claims for equalization and spousal support, and that the sale would prejudice her rights.

The court found that the wife had established a prima facie case for substantial equalization and retroactive spousal support payments exceeding the husband's equity in the home, and that the wife would suffer prejudice if the home were sold before trial.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, arguing that the plaintiff's inordinate and inexcusable delay in advancing the litigation created a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list and to compel the defendant to attend examination for discovery.

The court found that while delay was inordinate, it was excusable because the defendant's former counsel was primarily responsible for the delay by failing to serve a sworn affidavit of documents despite three court orders.

The court found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant and restored the action to the trial list.

The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was dismissed to avoid further delay.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser in a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant refused to close on the purchase of a property after the title transferred from the original seller (Esther Hunter) to her Powers of Attorney (the plaintiffs' children) prior to the closing date.

The defendant claimed he was justified in refusing to close because he could not obtain title insurance due to concerns about the validity of the Power of Attorney.

The court found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was binding despite the title transfer, that the defendant did not provide a valid written objection to title by the required deadline, and that the requisitions raised were not proper title objections.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $248,318.60 less the $40,000 deposit, totaling $208,318.60, plus pre-judgment interest.

The defendant's counterclaim for return of the deposit was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Morguard Investments Limited, brought a negligence claim against the defendants, Alectra Inc. and Alectra Utilities Corporation, for damages resulting from a power outage during emergency electrical repairs.

The defendants cut power to the plaintiff's commercial premises in freezing temperatures to repair a broken electrical switch.

The power outage caused the plaintiff's hydronic heating system to freeze and burst, resulting in water damage.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that while the defendants may have owed a duty of care, the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of the standard of care.

The court determined that the plaintiff, as the building owner, was in the best position to know its heating system and should have alerted the defendants to the risk of pipes freezing in freezing conditions.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

Defendants brought a motion to set aside their noting in default and obtain a timetable to file a statement of defence in a real estate commission dispute.

The plaintiffs claimed unpaid commission fees of $47,460 plus aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages of $35,000 arising from a buyer representation agreement.

The defendants delayed serving their statement of defence for 319 days after being served with the statement of claim, despite multiple extensions and clear deadlines.

The defendants cited their child's autism diagnosis and required international medical treatment as the reason for delay, but provided insufficient supporting documentation.

The court found the defendants' behaviour unreasonable, the delay inordinate, the reason for delay inadequately substantiated, and the defence lacking in merit.

The motion was denied and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order declaring the applicant, as trustee for a bankrupt individual, and/or the bankrupt individual, to be vexatious litigants requiring leave to commence further court actions.

The respondent also sought dismissal of the applicant's application to enforce a foreign judgment as frivolous, vexatious, or without merit.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no evidence that the applicant was a vexatious litigant or that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court emphasized that the applicant, as a court-appointed trustee in bankruptcy, occupied a distinct legal position from the bankrupt individual and that the respondent's arguments regarding the merits of the underlying application were better addressed at the hearing of the application itself.

This trial involved claims for unjust enrichment between parties following the breakdown of a common law relationship that lasted from 2012 to 2017.

The applicant claimed compensation for unpaid labour provided to the respondent's wallpapering business, occupation rent for properties, and ownership disputes regarding jointly owned real property.

The respondent counterclaimed for unjust enrichment based on renovation work and mortgage contributions.

The court found the applicant entitled to $81,000 for unpaid labour to the business, the respondent entitled to $30,625.83 for half of mortgage payoff funds advanced to the applicant, and the parties to be equal 50% owners of the jointly purchased property.

No occupation rent was awarded to either party.

This decision resolves a parenting dispute between Mavis Amanquah and Gbenga Bumni Oluwamuyide, addressing decision-making responsibility, primary residence, parenting schedule, travel and documentation for the children, life insurance to secure child support, and retroactive child support and s.7 expenses.

The court grants the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, sets a detailed parenting schedule, and orders the father to pay retroactive support and maintain life insurance for the children.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law trial regarding the primary residence of a four-year-old child, S.P., following the separation of her parents, Sanjay Patel and Beejal Yogesh Sesha Patel.

The court considered issues of relocation, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that it was in S.P.'s best interests to continue residing with her mother in London, England, and for the existing parenting schedule to remain in place.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive spousal support, and set out directions for the continuation of the trial on outstanding financial issues.

The parties separated after a four-year marriage.

The wife sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the husband hid assets, spent family money recklessly, and engaged in family violence.

The court determined the net family property of both parties, including the valuation of the husband's business, a Florida property, and various debts and loans from the husband's father.

The court found no evidence of hidden assets or reckless depletion of property, and concluded that an equal division of net family property would not be unconscionable.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife an equalization payment of $19,098.74.

The court determined the equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage between Supreet Walia and Ashutosh Walia.

The applicant, Supreet Walia, sought an unequal division, alleging the respondent understated his net family property and hid assets.

The court dismissed claims against the respondent’s parents and their company, focusing solely on the spouses.

After detailed analysis of assets, liabilities, and credibility, the court found Supreet Walia entitled to an equalization payment of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest, rejecting claims for unequal division based on unconscionability or family violence.

The court considered whether the respondent, Marlene Francis, was unjustly enriched by the applicant, Vern Darchie Douglas, during their lengthy cohabitation.

Douglas claimed financial and other contributions to the property entitled him to compensation or a constructive trust.

The court found that while Douglas did not prove unjust enrichment regarding the down payment or ongoing mortgage payments, he was entitled to $18,000 for renovations and repairs that increased the property's value.

The court declined to find a joint family venture and awarded a monetary remedy rather than a proprietary interest.

This decision resolves competing applications between a commercial landlord and tenant regarding the use of a basement in a leased property.

The landlord, Danica Schindler, sought to terminate the lease with DFIV Corp. for alleged breaches, including unauthorized use of the basement and installation of equipment.

The tenant countered that use of the basement was an implied term and that the landlord breached the lease by restricting access and failing to provide adequate HVAC.

The court found the lease did not include the basement, the tenant breached the lease by using the basement and installing equipment without consent, and the landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession.

The Town of Caledon sought a declaration that the respondents failed to comply with a consent order requiring removal of structures, trucks, trailers, and equipment from their property.

The respondents argued substantial compliance and requested more time.

The court interpreted the order as requiring removal of all such items, not just those associated with a transportation depot, and found the respondents in breach.

The respondents were given 60 days to comply, after which the Town may remove the items at the respondents’ expense.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that stayed his eviction and rental arrears application against three joint tenants after one tenant filed for bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court found the LTB adjudicator made an error of law and breached procedural fairness by incorrectly advising the landlord that the bankruptcy stayed the entire proceeding against all tenants, rather than just the bankrupt tenant.

The court allowed the appeal, converted the application to seek arrears only, and ordered the two non-bankrupt tenants to pay $35,000 in rental arrears.

This trial concerned the validity and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties after mediation.

The applicant sought to uphold the agreement, while the respondent argued it should be set aside due to alleged non-disclosure of assets and a lack of understanding of the agreement's nature and consequences, including claims of unconscionability and ineffective counsel.

The court found the Minutes of Settlement valid and enforceable, rejecting the respondent's arguments regarding non-disclosure, lack of understanding, and unconscionability, emphasizing that the respondent had legal representation and ample time to consider the agreement.