Nicola-Antonio Melchiorre

A daughter claimed $57,000 from her mother, alleging she had made monthly investment payments of $1,000 between April 2005 and December 2009 toward a twelve-unit rental property in exchange for a promise that the property would eventually be transferred to her and rent proceeds would be shared.

The mother denied the claim on multiple grounds: statute of limitations, insufficient proof of payments, and that the claim was premature as the property was to be transferred upon her death.

The court found the daughter had proven the $57,000 in payments on a balance of probabilities and established unjust enrichment.

The court applied an equitable set-off of $10,800 for rent-free occupancy and services rendered, reducing the award to $46,200.

The court rejected the statute of limitations defence, finding the limitation period commenced on January 28, 2018, when the mother indicated the relationship was at an end, and the action was commenced within two years.

The court also rejected the clean hands doctrine and premature claim defences.

The applicant commenced an application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 seeking forfeiture of seized cash.

The proceeding settled pursuant to a Rule 49 offer to settle made by the respondent that returned most of the funds but left costs to be assessed by the court.

The respondent sought costs on the basis that it was largely successful.

The court held that under Rule 49.07(5)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, where a defendant’s offer to settle does not address costs and is accepted, the plaintiff (or applicant) is entitled to costs to the date of service of the offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs to that date and also determined costs relating to a separate refusals motion.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 against thirteen properties alleged to be proceeds of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and money laundering.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing there were no reasonable and probable grounds, that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the initial ex parte motion, and that continuation of the order was not in the interests of justice.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe that eight of the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime due to unexplained funding gaps, but discharged the order for five properties where legitimate funding sources were demonstrated.

The court dismissed the non-disclosure arguments and found that continuing the preservation order for the eight properties was not clearly against the interests of justice.