Paul B. Adam

Maria Sophia Furtado, a tenant and caregiver to the deceased Endel Lindaja, sought an ownership interest in his condominium based on an alleged promise, unjust enrichment, or dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Estate Trustee, Tonu Peep Tosine, sought a declaration of ownership, an order for Furtado to vacate, and occupation rent.

The court dismissed Furtado's claims for dependant support and unjust enrichment, finding she was not a "dependant" and there was a juristic reason for any enrichment (free room and board for services).

The court declared the condominium wholly owned by the Estate.

However, the court also dismissed the Estate Trustee's claims for Furtado to vacate and pay occupation rent, finding she remained a tenant and any termination or rent claim must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act.

Maria Sophia Furtado, a tenant and caregiver to the deceased Endel Lindaja, sought an ownership interest in his condominium based on an alleged promise, unjust enrichment, or dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Estate Trustee, Tonu Peep Tosine, sought a declaration of ownership, an order for Furtado to vacate, and occupation rent.

The court dismissed Furtado's claims for dependant support and unjust enrichment, finding she was not a "dependant" and there was a juristic reason for any enrichment (free room and board for services).

The court declared the condominium wholly owned by the Estate.

However, the court also dismissed the Estate Trustee's claims for Furtado to vacate and pay occupation rent, finding she remained a tenant and any termination or rent claim must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act.

This is a costs decision arising from an appeal of an order made under s. 490 of the Criminal Code.

The pawnbroker successfully obtained an order for return of a stolen diamond that had been seized by police during a criminal investigation.

The estate of the original owner appealed the order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Both parties subsequently sought costs of the appeal.

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs, as s. 683(3) of the Criminal Code expressly prohibits the allowance of costs to either the appellant or respondent on the hearing and determination of an appeal.

A pawnbroker brought an application under s. 490(7) and (9)(c) of the Criminal Code seeking return of a diamond seized by police during a criminal investigation.

The diamond had been stolen from the deceased and pawned to the pawnbroker, from whom police seized it.

The application judge granted the order without notice to the estate of the deceased, who had an ownership interest in the diamond.

The estate appealed, arguing it was entitled to participate in the application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that although the pawnbroker met the statutory notice requirements by notifying the Attorney General, the application was made on an ex parte basis and the pawnbroker failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including the estate's competing claim to the diamond.

This decision addresses costs for motions brought by both the plaintiffs and the defendant concerning the attendance of a non-party at discovery and the service of further affidavits of documents.

The court found that neither side was significantly more successful, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the non-party attendance issue and the defendant on the production issues.

The court emphasized that the time and money spent on these motions were not proportional to the amounts in issue, leading to an order for no costs.

The plaintiffs and defendant brought cross-motions concerning the attendance of a non-party at discovery and the service of further and better affidavits of documents in a home renovation construction dispute.

The court granted the defendant's request for a non-party (Ms. Clementi) to assist counsel at discovery, with limits on her role to prevent disruption and ensure she does not act as a witness.

Both parties' motions for further document production were dismissed, with the court ordering a proportionate approach where each side produces additional key documents they intend to rely on at trial.

The decision emphasized the 'culture shift' towards proportionality in civil litigation, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, given the relatively modest amounts in dispute.

The plaintiffs and defendant brought cross-motions concerning the attendance of a non-party at discovery and the service of further and better affidavits of documents in a home renovation construction dispute.

The court granted the defendant's request for a non-party (Ms. Clementi) to assist counsel at discovery, with limits on her role to prevent disruption and ensure she does not act as a witness.

Both parties' motions for further document production were dismissed, with the court ordering a proportionate approach where each side produces additional key documents they intend to rely on at trial.

The decision emphasized the 'culture shift' towards proportionality in civil litigation, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, given the relatively modest amounts in dispute.