M.T. Doi

The parties separated after a common law relationship.

The father sought primary residence, decision-making responsibility, child support, and occupation rent for the home he solely owned but where the mother continued to reside.

The mother claimed a constructive trust over the home, alleging she contributed to the mortgage.

The court granted the father primary residence and decision-making for the younger child, ordered the mother to pay child support, and dismissed the mother's constructive trust claim due to lack of evidence of unjust enrichment.

The court also ordered the mother to vacate the home and pay $56,848 in occupation rent for her extended stay.

The applicant father sought an equalization of net family property, while the respondent mother claimed ongoing and retroactive child support.

The respondent maternal grandfather claimed a resulting trust over the matrimonial home, alleging he loaned the mother funds to purchase it.

The court found the father rebutted the presumption of resulting trust, determining the funds were a gift.

The court set the date of separation as September 30, 2017, ordered the mother to pay an equalization payment, and imputed income to the father to calculate retroactive and ongoing child support, which was offset against the equalization payment.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff claimed damages for physical and mental injuries suffered as a bystander who witnessed a fatal motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as Canadian courts have recognized a potential duty of care to bystanders who suffer nervous shock from witnessing horrific accidents.

The moving defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained against him by the plaintiff bank in an action to enforce a corporate guarantee.

The plaintiff had inadvertently noted the defendant in default before the 20-day deadline to defend had expired.

The court admitted a portion of a settlement-privileged email to assess when the defendant learned of the claim.

Applying the five-factor test, the court found the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the default, and raised an arguable misrepresentation defence.

The court set aside the default judgment, concluding it was in the interests of justice to allow the defendant to defend the claim on its merits.