P. Amey

The parties separated after a 40-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, claiming the respondent recklessly depleted assets, and advanced an unjust enrichment claim alleging the farming operations were a joint family venture.

The court dismissed both claims, finding no evidence of unconscionable conduct or a joint family venture.

The court also rejected the applicant's expert valuation of farm equipment due to bias and accepted the respondent's valuation.

The applicant's claim for repayment of a loan was found to be statute-barred.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in occupation rent and ordered her to pay the respondent an equalization payment of $140,000, subject to deductions.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change regarding child support and arrears.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant's offer was closer to the final order than the respondent's.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable, as he had failed to disclose income for years and was previously found in contempt.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant costs of $18,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

A dispute arose among partners in a long‑standing farming partnership following notice of termination given under the partnership agreement.

The court was asked to interpret provisions of the partnership agreement concerning termination, partner draws, and occupation of homes situated on partnership property.

The court held that the partnership terminated six months after written notice and declared that all partnership draws should have ceased upon termination.

The court further determined that partners occupying houses on the farm were required to pay fair market value rent from the date of termination while winding up the partnership.

Orders were made directing the sale of farm equipment, cattle, and the farm property within specified timelines.

A contractor sued a distributor and manufacturer after copper tubing supplied for a municipal watermain failed a mandatory sterilization test required by municipal specifications, forcing replacement with alternative piping and causing significant remediation costs.

The court held the distributor liable in contract under the Sale of Goods Act for breach of implied conditions of fitness and merchantable quality, finding the contractor relied on the distributor’s expertise and that the tubing was not fit for its intended municipal watermain use.

The manufacturer was found liable in negligence for failing to investigate regulatory requirements and municipal sterilization standards after legislative changes following the Walkerton water crisis and for failing to warn the parties despite internal knowledge that high chlorine concentrations could cause corrosion and sterilization test failure.

The court concluded the manufacturer breached its duty of care and failed to disclose critical information during the project.

Damages were awarded for remediation costs incurred in removing and replacing the copper tubing.

The plaintiffs were partially successful at trial, establishing that their mother breached her fiduciary duty through physical abuse, but failing to establish claims regarding sexual abuse against her and their grandparents.

In this costs decision, the court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $62,899.60 against the mother to condemn her assaultive behavior, despite their limited success.

The successful grandparent defendants were awarded modest partial indemnity costs of $13,000.

Pre-judgment interest was fixed at 5 percent, but limited to a 5-year period due to the plaintiffs' delay in prosecuting the claim.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought to bifurcate the case so that the validity of two marriage contracts would be tried first before addressing spousal support and equalization claims.

The respondent opposed bifurcation and sought interim expenses of $100,000 to fund the litigation.

Applying Rule 12(5) of the Family Law Rules and relevant jurisprudence, the court held that the validity of the marriage contracts was a threshold issue and that splitting the case would likely shorten the litigation, reduce expense, and promote settlement.

The court found no prejudice to the respondent and ordered a first trial limited to the validity of the marriage contracts.

The respondent’s motion for further interim expenses was dismissed because a prior award remained sufficient to fund the initial trial stage.

The plaintiff sought continuation of an ex parte interim injunction and a permanent injunction to prevent nearby blasting associated with residential construction, alleging vibrations would disrupt the alignment of satellite earth stations used for communications services.

The court applied the standard requiring a very strong probability of grave future harm before granting injunctive relief.

Expert evidence from the defendants indicated an extremely low probability of damage under the blasting plan, while the plaintiff’s evidence was largely speculative and lacked detailed technical analysis.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish a strong probability of harm on the balance of probabilities.

The motion to continue the injunction was therefore dismissed.

Following a prior summary judgment awarding the plaintiff approximately $994,728.92 on a guarantee claim, the court addressed the appropriate quantum of costs.

The successful party sought $32,500 in partial indemnity costs, while the responding parties argued for $20,000 and challenged docketed hours, hourly rate, and the use of senior counsel rather than junior counsel.

The court held that costs are determined based on what is fair and reasonable rather than through strict percentage formulas and found the docketed hours reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that work should have been delegated to junior counsel, noting that the experience of senior counsel may reduce total time required.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs sued their mother and maternal grandparents for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they failed to protect them from childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by their uncles.

The plaintiffs also alleged their mother physically abused them.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the sexual abuse, finding insufficient evidence that the mother or grandparents knew or ought to have known about the abuse at the time.

However, the court found the mother liable for breach of fiduciary duty due to repeated physical abuse and awarded each plaintiff $35,000 in damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants as guarantors of a $500,000 loan provided for a retirement home construction project.

The defendants argued they were released from their guarantees due to material alterations to the loan agreement, accord and satisfaction, premature demand, and laches.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court rejected all defences, finding no material alteration, no acceptance of units in satisfaction of the debt, that the loan was due, and that the delay in demanding payment benefited rather than prejudiced the defendants.

Summary judgment was granted in the amount claimed.

In a supplementary endorsement addressing costs following a motion brought by a court-appointed forensic accountant seeking payment of additional fees, the court considered multiple claims for costs among parties and against the expert.

The motion seeking payment of an additional $288,000 beyond previously authorized funds had been dismissed.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs, including the limited circumstances in which costs may be awarded against non-parties under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the circumstances did not justify a costs award against the court-appointed expert or the Children’s Lawyer.

Claims for costs among the parties were largely rejected, with any potential claims reserved for determination by the trial judge.

A court-appointed forensic accountant brought a motion seeking payment of a final invoice for investigative work performed in complex estate and trust litigation following the death of a family patriarch.

The expert had previously estimated that completion of the mandate would cost approximately $100,000 but later submitted a substantially larger final invoice.

The court held that the expert bore the onus of justifying the amount and found the explanation for the dramatic increase unpersuasive.

In the circumstances, the expert was required to abide by the prior representation to the court and the motion for payment of the additional amount was dismissed.

Requests for production of the expert’s working papers were found premature, and a request by other professionals for reimbursement of costs was deferred to the next case management judge.