Mesbur

The parties separated after a 20-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought a share of the proceeds from the sale of the family home, which was registered solely in the respondent's name, claiming unjust enrichment due to her significant renovations and repairs.

The court found the applicant contributed equally to the property's value and awarded her half the net value.

The court also imputed income to the respondent due to intentional underemployment, calculating retroactive child support and spousal support.

The child support arrears were deemed satisfied by the respondent's payment of the home's carrying costs, and ongoing spousal support was ordered at $1,000 per month.

The applicant Fund sought the return of $1,461,220 that its Former Manager unilaterally paid itself upon resigning.

The Former Manager claimed the funds were owed as Incentive Participation Amounts (IPA) compensation under the Management Agreement.

The court found that the IPA compensation was contractually required to be paid as dividends.

Because the Fund no longer qualified as an open-end mutual fund, it was subject to the solvency test under s. 42 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, which it could not meet.

Therefore, the Fund was prohibited from declaring dividends, making the Former Manager's self-payment unauthorized.

The court ordered the Former Manager to repay the funds but declined to award punitive damages, noting the Former Manager did not conceal its actions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to produce a 12,000-page 'JDIMI Production Report with Lead Sheet' in a dispute over earn-out payments following the sale of an insurance business.

The defendants resisted, arguing the plaintiff was on a fishing expedition and that the documents contained confidential client information.

The court granted the motion, finding that the documents were relevant, easily producible, and that the defendants' confidentiality concerns could be addressed through a comprehensive confidentiality agreement.

Following a motion where the applicant successfully compelled the respondent to comply with outstanding orders and post security for costs, the applicant sought costs of $12,687.06.

The court awarded costs on a partial recovery basis, fixing the amount at $6,100.

This included $2,000 to compensate the applicant for her own time spent preparing materials as a self-represented litigant, noting the importance of meaningful costs awards for self-represented parties in family law.

The Estate Trustee applied to rectify a drafting error in the deceased's Secondary Will.

The will mistakenly directed the redemption of 150 Class D shares to fund a $2 million bequest, but the deceased owned Class E shares, and 300 shares were required to generate the necessary after-tax proceeds.

The drafting solicitor admitted the error.

The deceased's widow opposed the rectification, arguing it should await the trial of her separate negligence claim against the solicitor.

The court applied the Robinson test, found the solicitor misunderstood or failed to carry out the testator's instructions, and granted the rectification to reflect the deceased's true intentions.

The defendant lawyer moved for summary judgment to dismiss a professional negligence claim against him.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyer negligently failed to ensure her ex-husband maintained an irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designation under an interim separation agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the interim agreement was superseded by a final separation agreement negotiated by a different lawyer, which fundamentally changed the insurance obligations and did not require an irrevocable designation.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial as the defendant's actions did not cause the plaintiff's loss.

A law firm deposited a fraudulent bank draft into its trust account and subsequently issued a certified trust cheque for $600,000 to the responding party, an innocent third party who was owed a significant debt by the law firm's client.

The law firm's insurer, having covered the bank's loss, brought a motion to recover the funds from the responding party, arguing mistake of fact.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that as between two innocent parties, the law firm must bear the loss because it was in a position to prevent the fraud through basic diligence but acted carelessly.

The bankrupt, a lawyer, made an assignment in bankruptcy but concealed it for years while an estate trustee sued him for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation, eventually obtaining a default judgment.

The bankrupt later sought to rely on the automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to avoid the judgment and subsequent costs orders.

The court dismissed the bankrupt's motion and granted the estate trustee's motion, finding that the claim was too remote and speculative to be a provable claim in bankruptcy.

Alternatively, the court held the debt would survive bankruptcy under s. 178 due to the bankrupt's misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and that it would be equitable to lift the stay under s. 69.4 given the bankrupt's egregious conduct.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a final joint custody order, seeking sole custody of the parties' seven-year-old child.

The father alleged that the mother used physical discipline and that the child required more stability due to an ADHD diagnosis.

The court found no material change in circumstances that would warrant altering the existing parenting arrangement.

Evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer and collaterals indicated the child's behaviour and emotional well-being had improved significantly since his ADHD diagnosis and medication.

The motion to change was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay costs of $7,000.

The bankrupt applied for an automatic discharge, which was opposed by his former wife, a major creditor owed an equalization payment.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in a nefarious scheme to hide over $400,000 in offshore accounts and his mother's name to defeat his wife's claims.

Finding multiple facts proven under s. 173(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including failure to account for assets and hazardous speculation, the court refused an absolute discharge.

The bankrupt was granted a conditional discharge requiring him to pay $350,000 to the Trustee.

The applicant, a 64-year-old man with significant health issues, brought a motion for temporary dependant's support from his late father's estate.

The respondent, the applicant's mother and sole beneficiary, had distributed the entire estate to herself without applying for probate.

The court found credible evidence that the applicant was a dependant and ordered the respondent to pay $5,000 per month in temporary support plus a $5,000 lump sum.

The court also held that the limitation period for the claim had not expired because it only begins to run upon a grant of probate, which had never been obtained.

The appellant appealed the bankruptcy Trustee's disallowance of her proof of claim for an estimated $500,000 equalization payment against her bankrupt spouse.

The court determined the appeal should proceed as a true appeal based on the record before the Trustee, rather than a hearing de novo.

The court found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support or quantify her equalization claim, noting that the family law trial judge had previously concluded no equalization payment would be owing.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The parents appealed an Ontario Court of Justice decision finding their child in need of protection and making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and that they signed documents under duress from their counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors, properly applied the criteria under the Child and Family Services Act, and that there was no evidence to support the claims of duress or incompetent counsel.

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined issues of child custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court ordered that the three children reside primarily with the mother, rejecting the father's request for equal parenting time and the OCL's recommendation for individual overnights, citing the father's relentless pressure on the children and focus on reducing child support.

The father was ordered to pay table child support based on an income of $118,000.

The court dismissed the mother's claim that equalizing net family property would be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, but awarded her a $25,000 lump sum for spousal support to address economic disadvantage.

After calculating equalization and post-separation adjustments, the mother was ordered to pay a net amount of $5,064 to the father.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her three children Crown Wards with continued access.

The mother argued the motions judge failed to consider her cultural background and that the parenting capacity assessment was culturally insensitive.

The Superior Court found the mother failed to present evidence to counter the Society's overwhelming case, which included her guilty plea to assaulting the children and her inability to meet their significant special needs.

The children, who had been in the same foster home for over two years, expressed a clear wish to remain there.

The court also rejected the mother's fresh evidence, finding it insufficient to alter the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a trial decision permitting the defendant to set off amounts paid to assume a lease, the parties could not agree on the calculation of the judgment.

The plaintiff argued the set-off should be calculated on a declining balance basis and exclude tax input credits.

The court held the defendant was entitled to set off the entire lease obligation immediately, as it relieved the plaintiff of the full liability.

The court also rejected the tax argument, finding it was an improper attempt to introduce fresh evidence after trial.

The grandchildren beneficiaries of an estate brought a motion to set aside releases they had previously signed regarding the estate trustees' accounts, and to dispense with mandatory mediation for a subsequent passing of accounts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the attempt to set aside the releases was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was brought more than two years after the releases were signed.

Furthermore, the court found no legal basis to set aside the releases, as they were signed under seal and there was no evidence of duress or lack of understanding.

The court also declined to dispense with mandatory mediation, noting its general utility in estate disputes.

The applicant, an Italian court-appointed interim guardian for an incapable retired priest, sought an order that the Ontario court decline jurisdiction over his guardianship.

The respondents, who held powers of attorney and sought to be appointed guardians in Ontario, argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the priest's connections to Canada and Canon Law.

The court determined that the priest had abandoned his Canadian domicile of choice and reverted to his Italian domicile of origin before becoming incapable.

Consequently, the court declined jurisdiction, deferred to the Italian court, and terminated the powers of attorney as they were executed while the priest was incapable.

The plaintiffs, principals of a trucking business, sued HSBC Bank Canada seeking declarations that their personal guarantees were void.

HSBC counterclaimed against the plaintiffs and others for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and conversion, alleging they provided false audited financial statements, forged signatures, and fictitious accounts receivable to induce the bank to lend over $9 million.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and granted judgment in favour of HSBC on its counterclaims, finding the defendants liable for over $10 million in damages for misrepresentation, nearly $4 million for conversion, and $100,000 in punitive damages.

The applicants brought an oppression application regarding a family investment company, Naim Investments Limited.

They alleged that the proposed sale of a 10% shareholding by an estate to a third party, Dr. Low, was a disguised sale to a rival family branch that would breach an unwritten control agreement and a written ownership restriction agreement.

The court found no evidence of a control agreement, determined that Dr. Low was an arm's length purchaser, and concluded that the election of a new board to approve the sale was a proper exercise of corporate governance to resolve a deadlock.

The application was dismissed with costs.