Murray Maltz

The applicant commenced an action for a constructive trust over a property owned by his deceased common-law spouse.

The respondent estate brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to add the estate beneficiaries as parties.

The court dismissed the estate's motion, finding that a claim for a constructive trust over real property is governed by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the Trustee Act.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to add the beneficiaries, finding it unnecessary at this stage.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's family law application, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant had not been ordinarily resident in Ontario for the one year immediately preceding the application, and therefore dismissed the claims under the Divorce Act.

However, the court held it had jurisdiction to hear the corollary claims for property, support, and custody under the Family Law Act and Children's Law Reform Act, as the applicant and children currently resided in Ontario and had a real and substantial connection to the province.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his mother, sister, and others regarding a family cottage, alleging fraud and conspiracy against his sister.

The plaintiff settled with the other parties and consented to the dismissal of the action against his sister.

The sister sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to deprive the successful sister of her costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity scale due to the unproven allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

However, finding the claimed amount of over $400,000 excessive and disproportionate to the $300,000 value of the cottage, the court referred the bill of costs to an assessment officer before fixing the final amount.