Parayeski

The plaintiff, the Ontario Securities Commission, moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the transfer of a Welland home from the defendants, a husband and wife, to the wife alone was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors.

The husband owed an outstanding fine to the plaintiff for breaches of the Securities Act.

The court found that the transfer was made for nominal consideration and with the acknowledged intent to protect the property from creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, declaring the conveyance fraudulent and void, and alternatively found that the husband retained an interest in the property via resulting and constructive trusts.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action moved for an order nunc pro tunc to extend the deadlines set out in a previous consent timetable order.

The court applied the test for setting aside a Registrar's dismissal order, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

Finding the plaintiff's explanations for missing multiple deadlines inadequate and not the result of inadvertence, the court dismissed the motion and directed the Registrar to dismiss the action for noncompliance.

The accused brought an application to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence of drugs found in his apartment, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked full and frank disclosure and relied on unreliable confidential informants.

The court excised certain unconstitutionally obtained information from the ITO but concluded that the authorizing judge could still have granted the warrant based on the remaining record.

The court also noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought child support from his parents to fund his university education.

The applicant had been attending university full-time since 2010 and financed his education through loans and part-time work.

The court found the applicant remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and was entitled to support.

The court ordered the parents to pay two-thirds of the applicant's educational expenses proportionate to their incomes, including one year of retroactive support.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors following multiple defaults on a mortgage and fire insurance policy.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's acceptance of a partial payment 'without prejudice' remade the agreement, requiring the plaintiff to restart the collection process, and counterclaimed that the plaintiff dissuaded a donor from paying off the mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no direct evidence to support the counterclaim and concluding that the partial payment was merely on account, not a remaking of the agreement.

The court also rejected the argument that the action was barred by section 42(1) of the Mortgages Act.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage with four children.

The mother sought sole custody, limited access for the father, and significant equalization and support payments.

The court ordered joint custody, finding the mother had attempted to minimize the father's relationship with the children.

The court expanded the father's access and imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the mother, a qualified teacher, due to intentional underemployment.

The father was ordered to pay child support, a time-limited spousal support of $250 per month, and an equalization payment of $63,419.27, subject to deductions for credits and prior costs.