Michael Deverett

The moving party sought an order requiring the non-party, who was the partner of the unsuccessful applicant in a will challenge, to pay the costs of the application.

The moving party alleged the non-party was a maintainer of the lawsuit and his involvement constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the non-party had a genuine interest in supporting his partner, did not intermeddle improperly, and his conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The court also upheld the assertion of litigation privilege over communications between the non-party and the applicant's lawyers.

The applicant sought $813,000 from her deceased former common-law spouse's estate, claiming an interest in the proceeds of the sale of his residential property based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found that the parties maintained separate finances and property ownership during their relationship, and the applicant did not suffer a deprivation nor did the deceased receive an enrichment.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims, finding no unjust enrichment and no joint family venture.

The applicants, a mother and her adult daughter, sought dependant relief from the estate of the deceased under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The mother claimed to be the deceased's common-law spouse, and the daughter claimed the deceased demonstrated a settled intention to treat her as a child of his family.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the mother and the deceased ever cohabited or lived together continuously for three years.

The court also found no settled intention by the deceased to treat the adult daughter as his own child.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent estate.

The appellant wife appealed a temporary order requiring her to advance $100,000 to the respondent husband for interim disbursements and legal fees.

The wife argued that the motions judge erred in his discretion and that there was a lack of procedural fairness because the notice of motion did not specifically request interim disbursements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and that the motions judge appropriately exercised his discretion given the serious credibility issues and the need for documentary disclosure.

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order denying her individual party status in a class action settlement.

The respondents argued that the appeal lacked merit based on previous case law.

The court found a reasonable explanation for the delay and concluded that the issue of standing should be decided by a full panel.

The motion to extend time was granted.