3 total
Property proceeds divided 30/70 reflecting unequal contributions; spousal support claim dismissed for lack of entitlement.
The parties cohabited for five and a half years.
Following their separation, the applicant sought a 50% share of the net proceeds from the sale of a property solely owned by the respondent, claiming a resulting or constructive trust, and unjust enrichment.
The respondent sought a 30/70 division in her favour and transitional spousal support.
The court found that the parties' initial and ongoing contributions were unequal, with the respondent contributing significantly more.
The court ordered the net proceeds divided 30% to the applicant and 70% to the respondent.
The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed as she failed to establish need or compensatory entitlement.
The court granted summary judgment for possession to a bank, finding it had no notice of the mortgagor's spousal status.
The Royal Bank of Canada brought a motion for summary judgment seeking possession of a property, leave to issue a writ of possession, and dismissal of a counterclaim by Shila Dabirinejad.
Ms. Dabirinejad, the spouse of the property's sole registered owner, Ali Sharafdin, argued that the bank knew or ought to have known she was Mr. Sharafdin's spouse and that her consent was not obtained for a charge registered on the property, which she claimed was the matrimonial home.
The court found that the bank had no actual or constructive knowledge of Ms. Dabirinejad's spousal status at the time the charge was registered, rejecting her evidence of a "chance meeting" with a bank employee.
The court concluded that the bank was entitled to rely on Mr. Sharafdin's representations that he was not a spouse and that the charge was valid.
The motion for summary judgment was granted, and Ms. Dabirinejad's counterclaim was dismissed.
Defendant found in contempt for intentionally failing to comply with financial disclosure and examination orders.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure and attendance at a judgment debtor examination.
The defendant claimed ill health prevented his compliance but provided insufficient medical evidence.
The court applied the three-pronged test for civil contempt and found that the defendant intentionally breached clear and unequivocal court orders.
The defendant was found in contempt but granted a final opportunity to purge the contempt before a sentencing hearing.
