Meghan A. Harrogate

The court considered motions by both parties regarding the sale of jointly owned property, occupation rent, and the return of personal possessions following the breakdown of a cohabitation relationship.

The applicant sought the sale of the property, occupation rent, and the return of his possessions, while the respondent sought financial disclosure and opposed the sale.

The court ordered the sale of the property, declined to award occupation rent, and directed the return of personal possessions, with certain proceeds to be held in trust pending resolution of outstanding claims.

The borrowers brought a motion within a receivership proceeding to discharge a mortgage on their residential property.

They had paid the mortgage in full to the mortgage broker, First Swiss, who had assigned the mortgage to Olympia Trust Company as a bare trustee for investors.

First Swiss misappropriated the funds and failed to remit them to Olympia.

The court found that First Swiss had actual and apparent authority to act as the agent for Olympia and the beneficial owner, Loucks.

The motion was granted, the mortgage was ordered discharged, and costs were awarded to the borrowers.

The applicants, Pamela Wells and David Kenneth Wells, daughter and son-in-law of the deceased Sylvia Rotter, brought two motions: one to defer Estate Administration Tax payment and another to dispense with an administration bond.

The court granted the deferral of tax payment, allowing it until the estate's value is established after the sale of the deceased's home.

However, the motion to dispense with the bond was deferred, as the court required further information regarding the representation of an incapacitated beneficiary, Horst Rotter, and consultation with his attorney, guardian, or the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to ensure his interests were protected under section 35 of the Estates Act.

The applicants sought specific performance after the respondent developer terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a new build condominium.

The parties initially agreed to a consent order restraining the sale of the property.

The respondent subsequently discovered the applicants had purchased another property shortly after entering the agreement and brought a motion to set aside the consent order and convert the application into an action.

The court found the non-disclosure relevant to the consent order and varied it to continue only pending a formal motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court also converted the application into an action, finding material facts in dispute and credibility issues regarding the uniqueness of the property and the parties' intentions that required a trial.