Mélisande Galipeau

Following a seven-day trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment for a trust interest of $560,000 and successfully defended a counterclaim, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court held that neither side established entitlement to enhanced costs consequences under Rule 49 because the offers to settle were inconsistent with the theory advanced at trial or were not more favourable than the result obtained.

The plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party on both the claim and counterclaim, but only on a partial indemnity basis.

After reviewing the bills of costs and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs at $120,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

A farmer and investor (plaintiff) and a younger farmer with access to dairy quota (defendant) entered into an oral agreement to purchase a farm and operate a dairy business together.

The plaintiff provided financing while the defendant contributed dairy quota.

The business failed after less than two years of operation.

The plaintiff sought a beneficial interest in the proceeds from the sale of the dairy quota (held in trust), reimbursement for cattle, custom work, and forage contributions, and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation.

The court found that while an oral agreement existed, the defendant did not breach its terms, made no actionable misrepresentations, and failed to prove damages.

However, the court found that the plaintiff had a purchase money resulting trust interest in the quota proceeds in the amount of $560,000 (representing his contribution to the quota purchase).

The plaintiff's other claims were dismissed, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the respondent and third-party corporate entities, alleging the respondent had significant control over family-related corporations.

The respondent contended he was merely an employee or minority shareholder with no control.

The court found that the respondent exercised direct or indirect influence or control in fact over the family corporations, largely due to the respondent's and third parties' failure to provide sufficient evidence clarifying his role and the corporate restructuring.

The court granted the applicant's disclosure order, requiring the respondent and several corporate entities to provide comprehensive financial and corporate records to enable a full assessment of the respondent's financial interests for equalization and income for child and spousal support.

The respondent's cross-motion for the applicant's travel information was adjourned, and one specific third-party disclosure request was denied as speculative.

This decision addresses the terms of an adjournment of a family law trial caused by the Applicant's counsel's unavailability due to health issues.

The Respondent sought orders for disclosure, costs thrown away, and a further advance on equalization.

The court ordered the Applicant to pay $11,300 in costs thrown away and a further $58,000 advance on equalization, finding the Applicant responsible for the adjournment despite no fault.

The court also issued an interim child support order on consent.